# Pico Will Not Operate 7 Days A Week



## Zand (Jul 10, 2007)

Press Release:



> PICO MOUNTAIN ANNOUNCES 2007-08 SEASON PASS PRICES, OPERATIONAL SCHEDULE
> Wednesday, July 11, 2007
> 
> KILLINGTON, Vt. – Pico Mountain announces 2007-08 season pass prices and products for skiers and riders to enjoy unlimited access and kick off the resort’s 70th season as one of the New England’s classic family ski areas.
> ...


----------



## JimG. (Jul 10, 2007)

Zand said:


> Press Release:



Cheap pass, reduced access and services.

You can pay me now or pay me later.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 10, 2007)

If I had rental property at the base I'd be pissed. Other then that it is a cheap pass option for people who work M-F mostly.


----------



## marcski (Jul 10, 2007)

Totally cheesy. The more I see and read the more I agree with Andyzee that the Killington (and pico) we knew are gone.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 10, 2007)

does this company have any positive news? 

dec. 15-mar 30 5 days a week for 399? i view this a bad news.


----------



## threecy (Jul 10, 2007)

*cough* Brodie *cough* Haystack *cough*


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 10, 2007)

This is HORRIBLE..........POWDR/SPLand will be the SURE demise of a GREAT mountain........

BRING BACK ASC..

M


----------



## threecy (Jul 10, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> POWDR/SPLand will be the SURE demise of a GREAT mountain........



I wouldn't go that far...it's just Powdr/SP has more to lose than ASC, so they have to look at the bottom line.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 10, 2007)

threecy said:


> I wouldn't go that far...it's just Powdr/SP has more to lose than ASC, so they have to look at the bottom line.


The bottom line is what this is all about. I believe once Powdr get the finances under control and they can turn a profit, GOOD changes will SLOWLY happen. I think these tough decisions are good for K in the long run...Its a BIG picture thing. ASC could never turn it around, they had there chance. I say wait 5 years before we really can judge Powdr on what they have done.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 10, 2007)

ALLSKIING said:


> The bottom line is what this is all about. I believe once Powdr get the finances under control and they can turn a profit, GOOD changes will SLOWLY happen. I think these tough decisions are good for K in the long run...Its a BIG picture thing. ASC could never turn it around, they had there chance. I say wait 5 years before we really can judge Powdr on what they have done.


 
And the tooth fairy will visit you on the day of the turn around  . Sorry Dave, not buying it. Not certain, but I will probably be at K one more year and I do have to consider the possibility of buying the Pico pass because of the price. But I do have one concern, they already stated that the season at Killington will be shorter, what's that mean for Pico? When can we expect their season to end?


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 10, 2007)

andyzee said:


> And the tooth fairy will visit you on the day of the turn around  . Sorry Dave, not buying it. Not certain, but I will probably be at K one more year and I do have to consider the possibility of buying the Pico pass because of the price. But I do have one concern, they already stated that the season at Killington will be shorter, what's that mean for Pico? When can we expect their season to end?


See you back at K in 5 years..:razz: Seriously though Powdr is not making any friends this offseason but you've got to give them a bit of time.


----------



## roark (Jul 10, 2007)

andyzee said:


> what's that mean for Pico? When can we expect their season to end?


 when there isn't any natural snow... sure doesn't look like they'll be blowing much.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 10, 2007)

What is the origin of this story? The only place I see it is here and on KZone. I went on Pico's site as well as Killington's and see no mention of Pico only pass pricing.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 10, 2007)

andyzee said:


> What is the origin of this story? The only place I see it is here and on KZone. I went on Pico's site as well as Killington's and see no mention of Pico only pass pricing.



The press release is dated tomorrow, July 11.  Not sure how the original posters got a copy of it today but that could at least explain why it's not on the official websites.  Also, the press release says Pico's season will end March 30.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 10, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> The press release is dated tomorrow, July 11. Not sure how the original posters got a copy of it today but that could at least explain why it's not on the official websites. Also, the press release says Pico's season will end March 30.


 
March 30th I could live with, still want to see this in print somewhere other then on these two sites.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 10, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Cheap pass, reduced access and services.
> 
> You can pay me now or pay me later.



You got that right!


----------



## andyzee (Jul 10, 2007)

Source of story: http://www.killington.com/pressreleases.html?idpr=463&nobar=1


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2007)

threecy said:


> *cough* Brodie *cough* Haystack *cough*


*cough* 2k verts *cough* 2 HSQs *cough*



I think this is a bad move. Even if most people only ski weekends and it is a decent deal, I think pontential pass holders will read this as bad news. Pico has long been under the shadow of Killington. It seems Powdr is indeed treating Pico like ASC treated Haystack in that they can not sell to the competition such a fine nearby mountain but they also can not afford to sink money into it and operate a full expense. Yet another brilliant financial decision by the new ownership but this may be tightening up the purse strings a bit too much, especially for nearby property owners. One must wonder when Killington and Powdr are going to release some news that skiers will be generally happy about as they seem to piss off more and more of their former customers every week. I applauded some previous decisions but one must wonder just how much fat you can cut off and still be viable. Especially with this upcoming season being such an open market place due to increased pass prices at the big names and decreasing value from some of the major players. Though for a weekend only skier this is a good deal for what Pico is.


----------



## snowman (Jul 10, 2007)

The only reason they would have for being open tues, wed would be to facilitate an extensive school trip skiing program, which they obviously do not have, or can more than facilitate over at K. Sitting there spinning a lift, lighting a lodge and running deep fat fryers for 3 skiers is financially irresponsible. In this new "green era" it is ecologically irresponsible as well. I'm surprised they didn't spin it that way. My local area closed mon-tues for a couple years and then went to mon-tues daytime hours only to facilitate more schools wanting to come and housewives who like to ski during the week. I had no problem with either as I knew it was/is helping the area still be in business the following year. When was the last time any of you skiied Pico on one of the Tuesday and Wednesdays they will be closed? Exactly. Stop your bitching!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't see much bitching in this thread, just some discussion on the pros and cons.


----------



## marcski (Jul 10, 2007)

It's definitely a bad decision.  They could stay open bare-bones, on early mid week days.  Not run some lifts.  But still open and spin and serve their customers and the community.  Powder/Sp (and ASC to an extent as someone else mentioned above) need to see Pico for what it is.  It's not competition for Killington, they should market it toward a family friendly/local "escape" from the madness of K-mart.  

The only postive is that i'm sure they'll get a few good thursday crowds after a mon, tues or wednesday dump!


----------



## Sky (Jul 10, 2007)

I see the point that running the place for three skiers is wasted $...and therefore irresponsible (financially).

But looking from the bottom up...who will they get to work the place as a part time employee for a part time (ski season) job?  Area mamnagement, lodge and restaurant mgt, patrol, lifties, etc.

Could be interesting.

This feels similar to 6? years ago when Sugarbush broke free.  True they were open 7 days a week....but they certainly went through their growing pains!


----------



## snowman (Jul 10, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> I don't see much bitching in this thread, just some discussion on the pros and cons.



And I'm not doing the same??!? I'm citing the pros, and stating the people saying it's a con, throwing out words like "demise", are just bitching and moaning for the sake of bitching and moaning.


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> I think this is a bad move. Even if most people only ski weekends and it is a decent deal, I think pontential pass holders will read this as bad news. Pico has long been under the shadow of Killington. It seems Powdr is indeed treating Pico like ASC treated Haystack in that they can not sell to the competition such a fine nearby mountain but they also can not afford to sink money into it and operate a full expense. Yet another brilliant financial decision by the new ownership but this may be tightening up the purse strings a bit too much, especially for nearby property owners. One must wonder when Killington and Powdr are going to release some news that skiers will be generally happy about as they seem to piss off more and more of their former customers every week. I applauded some previous decisions but one must wonder just how much fat you can cut off and still be viable. Especially with this upcoming season being such an open market place due to increased pass prices at the big names and decreasing value from some of the major players. Though for a weekend only skier this is a good deal for what Pico is.





snowman said:


> The only reason they would have for being open tues, wed would be to facilitate an extensive school trip skiing program, which they obviously do not have, or can more than facilitate over at K. Sitting there spinning a lift, lighting a lodge and running deep fat fryers for 3 skiers is financially irresponsible. In this new "green era" it is ecologically irresponsible as well. I'm surprised they didn't spin it that way. My local area closed mon-tues for a couple years and then went to mon-tues daytime hours only to facilitate more schools wanting to come and housewives who like to ski during the week. I had no problem with either as I knew it was/is helping the area still be in business the following year. When was the last time any of you skiied Pico on one of the Tuesday and Wednesdays they will be closed? Exactly. Stop your bitching!



At first glance, I thought to myself, "oh boy, another chapter in the book of Killington PR disasters." Indeed, given the news out of Killington as of late, this is undoubtedly going to be looked at in a negative light. However, had none of that other stuff happened, and this announcement was spun more as a necessity to be able to offer a reasonably priced pass (which if looked independently of everything else that has gone down is truly a helluva deal) most Pico fans would be psyched about the news. Like snowman says, I  only skied one Tuesday and one Wednesday last season, short of night skiing. Those are probably the least likely ski days for most of us. I'm sure Powdr looked very closely at midweek skier visits and made the decision accordingly. Finally, Pico skiers will be psyched for Tuesday or Wednesday storms so they can get a bonus powder day on Thursdays.

I guess my only concern is the slippery slope potential, e.g. Fri-Sun only next season, and NELSAP the next. I've never skied Pico, but I would hate for it to end up as another Haystack. But at the end of the day, there's not a lot we're going to be able to do about it. Powdr has set the precedent that they will be running a pretty tight ship. Let's just hope they are getting all the bad news out now and better announcements are on the horizon.


----------



## threecy (Jul 10, 2007)

marcski said:


> It's definitely a bad decision.  They could stay open bare-bones, on early mid week days.  Not run some lifts.  But still open and spin and serve their customers and the community.



They already do the bare bones thing midweek.

Think about this realistically - they probably aren't making any money there midweek non-holiday.  They have PLENTY of terrain minutes away open those days.

If anything, with all of the talk of global warming and waste of energy/fuel/etc., SP/Powdr should be praised for conserving energy!  Running two high speed lifts for a few dozen skiers is VERY wasteful.


----------



## snowman (Jul 10, 2007)

marcski said:


> It's definitely a bad decision.  They could stay open bare-bones, on early mid week days.  Not run some lifts.  But still open and spin and serve their customers and the community.  Powder/Sp (and ASC to an extent as someone else mentioned above) need to see Pico for what it is.  It's not competition for Killington, they should market it toward a family friendly/local "escape" from the madness of K-mart.
> 
> The only postive is that i'm sure they'll get a few good thursday crowds after a mon, tues or wednesday dump!



You're missing the point entirely and don't understand the ski industry. They don't see it at competition, they see it as excess capacity at K or in the K geographical region. Most major resorts shut down certain lifts and certain lodges on the slow days of the week as it's pointless and a financial drain to have them open. Pico is even more of a problem to them though, as it's self contained and requires you to have a large amount of redundant services. There is no such thing as "bare bones". You have to have someone in the kitchen, you have to have someone selling tickets, you have to have staff in the rental shop, by insurance mandate they have to have atleast 2 pro patrollers on duty, and on and on. On top of that, the ecological impact of having all those services lit, along with with a HSQ which sucks power far more than a regular quad. I'm sure on slow weekdays at K there have been certain lifts shut down since the beginning of K. They will just open one or more of those up on a heavier tues, wed and absorb the excess capacity required in the valley, without having to have all those extra people and lights working.

You did hit on one thing I had thought of though: Yes, a mountain of powder 2 days after everywhere else has skiied out will make for a really good Thursday. It's also a huge plus to be able to drape snowmaking hose all over a trail knowing you don't have to deal with skiers for a couple days and allows the grooming staff to move some snow around in daylight, which is a lot easier than at night. :smile:


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 10, 2007)

Agreed Greg regarding this would be a total non-issue had not so many other hammers already fallen that disappointed people. Though the powder day Thursday idea may not hold up depending upon weather patterns. Powder in the East generally starts consolidating and getting manky unless the weather is well below freezing and the sun exposure minimum. Might line up well for a day after the day after pow day but the weather pattern would have to be in Pico's favor. I don't think any 2k vertical ski area has completely gone Nelsap yet but I would hope this would not be the first step in a backwards slide to a notable first on an unfortunate list.


----------



## snowman (Jul 10, 2007)

threecy said:


> .
> 
> If anything, with all of the talk of global warming and waste of energy/fuel/etc., SP/Powdr should be praised for conserving energy!  Running two high speed lifts for a few dozen skiers is VERY wasteful.




As I said. I have no idea why they didn't spin it this way. Didn't think of it or figured they would get called the kings of BS'ers? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Greg (Jul 10, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> If I had rental property at the base I'd be pissed.



Why? I have to imagine most renters are up on weekends for the most part. 



highpeaksdrifter said:


> Other then that it is a cheap pass option for people who work M-F mostly.



Well, remember, this is a Thurs-Mon pass, not a weekend only pass. If I was a local, I'd grab a midweek K pass and a Pico pass. $700 is not bad for 7 day a week access to at lease one of the areas.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 10, 2007)

Greg said:


> Why? I have to imagine most renters are up on weekends for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, remember, this is a Thurs-Mon pass, not a weekend only pass. If I was a local, I'd grab a midweek K pass and a Pico pass. $700 is not bad for 7 day a week access to at lease one of the areas.



i guess your right about the $700 angle but why let such a good part of the k experience sit vacant two days a week. does the world really need to accomedate the 9-5 m-f anymore than it already does? people do ski midweek, and maybe instead of turning them away, they should fight for their business. it's been sucessfully done before.

yeah i guess i'm kind of bitching, i'm o.k. with that however.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 10, 2007)

snowman said:


> Exactly. Stop your bitching!



Okay mom, lol.


----------



## tirolerpeter (Jul 10, 2007)

*Pico Mid-Week*



snowman said:


> The only reason they would have for being open tues, wed would be to facilitate an extensive school trip skiing program, which they obviously do not have, or can more than facilitate over at K. Sitting there spinning a lift, lighting a lodge and running deep fat fryers for 3 skiers is financially irresponsible. In this new "green era" it is ecologically irresponsible as well. I'm surprised they didn't spin it that way. My local area closed mon-tues for a couple years and then went to mon-tues daytime hours only to facilitate more schools wanting to come and housewives who like to ski during the week. I had no problem with either as I knew it was/is helping the area still be in business the following year. When was the last time any of you skiied Pico on one of the Tuesday and Wednesdays they will be closed? Exactly. Stop your bitching!



Fortunately for me, this entire issue is moot since as of this past March I now live in UT.  But, as a former A41 passholder I, like any number of retirees, businessmen with flexible schedules, and college students used to ski Tue - Thu exclusively.  We left the week-ends to those poor souls who were limited by their work schedules and their families.  So, for any number of people, it is not about bitching at all.  It is about losing a nice mountain at a time that works well for them.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Why? I have to imagine most renters are up on weekends for the most part.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, remember, this is a Thurs-Mon pass, not a weekend only pass. If I was a local, I'd grab a midweek K pass and a Pico pass. $700 is not bad for 7 day a week access to at lease one of the areas.



Why? = Because most people who want to take a weeks ski vacation and rent a slope side condo want the option of skiing at that mountain everyday of the week. No Tues. Wed. skiing at Pico (IMO) will make a weeks vacation there less inviting.

True it's not a weekend only pass, but weekends are when most working pass holders do most of their skiing. I know there's people who don't work M-F, but most people do. For those who do $300 ain't bad.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

If they let you ski K on Tues and Wed with the Pico pass without buying a ticket this would have set better.  I have to go read K's board, but I thought Tom H Spimaster stated the Pico rumours were false.  Wagons are getting ready to move I think.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

snowman said:


> And I'm not doing the same??!? I'm citing the pros, and stating the people saying it's a con, throwing out words like "demise", are just bitching and moaning for the sake of bitching and moaning.



The ski areas are in the business of making money. Like in any other business consumer dollar votes decide who stays open and who will meet their demise.

I don't know, but I have the feeling that Pico has been a loser from a financial point of view for awhile. Maybe closing it for 2 days mid-week will help it stay open rather then hurt it.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

Bob R said:


> If they let you ski K on Tues and Wed with the Pico pass without buying a ticket this would have set better.  I have to go read K's board, but I thought Tom H Spimaster stated the Pico rumours were false.  Wagons are getting ready to move I think.



It would sit better with Pico pass holders for sure, but how would Kmart pass holders who pay out $1,000 feel abut Pico pass holders $399 skiing their mountain Tues. and Wed.?


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> It would sit better with Pico pass holders for sure, but how would Kmart pass holders who pay out $1,000 feel abut Pico pass holders $399 skiing their mountain Tues. and Wed.?




interesting way to view it.  either way..... I'm glad I'm at the river.  If I had property there I would be fuming.  Not my battle or fight.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

Bob R said:


> If I had property there I would be fuming.



Me too, a major kick in the crotch for those who own there.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> If I was a local, I'd grab a midweek K pass and a Pico pass. $700 is not bad for 7 day a week access to at lease one of the areas.



Well, according to this article, K passes are good at Pico making this point moot.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

Here comes the big wooden spoon looking to stir and...

a few of you have already taken this and seen some of the reasons for the decision. Greg, threecy, and snowman.

My take is simple...POWDR taketh away cheapo K passes and giveth back cheapo Pico passes. And to make it clear what the operational differences are, the cheapo hill is open less and has less services. That seems totally logical to me.

Pico is never crowded, so if they are bombarded with people who buy the cheap pass it will only make it more profitable for POWDR to open Pico, not less. And the capacity is certainly there. Want to step up to the real world, pay the going pass price of $700-$1000 and ski right around the corner at Killington. 

So now the cheap pass option is back in play and everyone should be happy. NOT!

This is fun.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Me too, a major kick in the crotch for those who own there.



Own where? Pico? A major kick in the crotch? 

To drive 10 minutes to ski K instead?

Please.


----------



## 2knees (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Here comes the big wooden spoon looking to stir and...
> 
> a few of you have already taken this and seen some of the reasons for the decision. Greg, threecy, and snowman.
> 
> ...



Only problem with your arguement is that i believe pico offered a pass last year for $299.  So they have raised that pass $100 and cut 2 days out of their operation.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Own where? Pico? A major kick in the crotch?
> 
> To drive 10 minutes to ski K instead?
> 
> Please.



JiminyG talkin his crazy talk again. So you thinkin being open only 5 days a week is going to help property values for those folks who own condos at the base of Pico?

Plus the fact they are cutting services will no doubt worry perspective buyers of condos for sale that Pico might shut down all together in the future.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> JiminyG talkin his crazy talk again. So you thinkin being open only 5 days a week is going to help property values for those folks who own condos at the base of Pico?



My guess is that their condos are doing better than those at Haystack.  At least they're keeping Pico open 5 days (and more vacations) - ASC cut back Haystack a lot more!

Condo owners make an investment.  With investment comes risk.  My first sign to get out would have been when the ASC ship started taking in water years ago.  I don't expect SP/Powdr to close Pico anytime soon - in part because they're trying to keep it afloat by making the tough decisions (that ASC didn't have to make due to their power as a crippled company - you often have more leverage when the only thing banks can threaten you with is foreclosure (and can't do that because they'll lose their shirts, end double paranthetical tageant)).


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

Aw I would not buy if it was a 5 day a week place.  I bet condo values would be  in flix. mid week rentals are not goign to happen.  Yes investmetn is risky.  Again glad it was no me.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> JiminyG talkin his crazy talk again. So you thinkin being open only 5 days a week is going to help property values for those folks who own condos at the base of Pico?
> 
> Plus the fact they are cutting services will no doubt worry perspective buyers of condos for sale that Pico might shut down all together in the future.



Not concerned with property values. That's the concern of the property investor. I own a home, but I personally won't buy a ski vacation home anytime soon. Too volatile an investment.

You talk like these Pico property owners had no clue that ASC was in trouble and that their investment was in trouble. ASC never devoted any resources to Pico, nor did they try to open early/close late. Now POWDR gets all the blame? That's pure BS.

Property owners who had no idea they should have sold years ago weren't paying attention. Whose fault is that?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> *You talk like these Pico property owners had no clue that ASC was in trouble and that their investment was in trouble.* ASC never devoted any resources to Pico, nor did they try to open early/close late. Now POWDR gets all the blame? That's pure BS.



No I don't, what I said was I'd be pissed if I owned a condo at Pico and that those people must feel like they got a kick in the crotch.

You said basicly the same kinda thing when Kmart bond holders where pissed cause they lost there passes. You took a risk, that's the breaks. Well..yeah, but when the breaks don't go your way you can still be ticked off.

Marriage is a risk too, but I'd be mad if I came home and found my wife in bed with the mailman. Although, our mail person is a 30 year old woman, so maybe that could work out for me......hmmmm.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Not concerned with property values. That's the concern of the property investor. I own a home, but I personally won't buy a ski vacation home anytime soon. Too volatile an investment.
> 
> You talk like these Pico property owners had no clue that ASC was in trouble and that their investment was in trouble. ASC never devoted any resources to Pico, nor did they try to open early/close late. Now POWDR gets all the blame? That's pure BS.
> 
> Property owners who had no idea they should have sold years ago weren't paying attention. Whose fault is that?



Some reasonable points.

Jim I don't think anyone expected Pico to be a part time mountain.    I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of one.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> No I don't, what I said was I'd be pissed if I owned a condo at Pico and that those people must feel like they got a kick in the crotch.
> 
> You said basicly the same kinda thing when Kmart bond holders where pissed cause they lost there passes. You took a risk, that's the breaks. Well..yeah, but when the breaks don't go your way you can still be ticked off.
> 
> Marriage is a risk too, but I'd be mad if I came home and found my wife in bed with the mailman. Although, our mail person is a 30 year old woman, so maybe that could work out for me......hmmmm.



Risk...you used that word.

Risk is the domain of the buyer and it's personal. It's up to the individual to determine their level of risk and what makes them comfortable. 

Humans...they take risks usually to make money...gambling, stock market, property. Risk implies the opportunity for failure. You've got to take the good with the bad.

HPD, I see your point and you're right...they should be pissed.

At themselves, not POWDR.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

2knees said:


> Only problem with your arguement is that i believe pico offered a pass last year for $299.  So they have raised that pass $100 and cut 2 days out of their operation.



Only problem with your argument (  ) is the Pico pass was pushed down to $299 because of the artificially low price of the A41. Pass prices are simply adjusting this season.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> At themselves, not POWDR.



No. Simply at the overall situation, not exclusively themselves, nor Powdr.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> No. Simply at the overall situation, not exclusively themselves, nor Powdr.



Point taken...all I was trying to get at is that you have to pay close attention to all investments/assets.

ASC wasn't doing it for them, that's for sure.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Only problem with your argument (  ) is the Pico pass was pushed down to $299 because of the artificially low price of the A41. Pass prices are simply adjusting this season.



Good that Pat brought it up though...it shows how skewed pass prices had become.

POWDR is making some very tough decisions. I know most of them are pissing people off and it's understandable.

But making tough decisions is what can turn a business totally around. Sitting around and doing nothing but lowering prices like ASC did does not work in the long run.


----------



## MrMagic (Jul 11, 2007)

i think a poll might be in order: maybe in a new thread??

good that they are not open 7 days

bad they are not open 7 days

as a pico skier my vote goes to bad


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

MrMagic said:


> i think a poll might be in order: maybe in a new thread??
> 
> good that they are not open 7 days
> 
> ...



7 days to 5 days is bad.

Any skier worth his/her salt would agree.

But the question might really be "good they are open 5 days, bad they are open 0 days".


----------



## nycskier (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Only problem with your argument (  ) is the Pico pass was pushed down to $299 because of the artificially low price of the A41. Pass prices are simply adjusting this season.



The $299 Pico pass was not an early purchase but in season price. Meaning you didn't have to buy it in July but could get it in November (and I think even in December). So the comparison is not really apples to apples. The cheap Pico pass was available to purchase AFTER the cheap A41 pass deal expired.


----------



## nycskier (Jul 11, 2007)

I think the people who should really be angry about this are the people who already bought a 2007-2008 Killington season pass. 

They did so expecting a full season at both Killington and Pico. Now after they bought a pass they find out Pico will be closed Tue and Wed which in a sense reduces the value of the pass they just bought.

The real concern I would have if Pico plans on closing 2 days a week will Powdr blow a lot less snow on Pico. After all why would they blow snow for a closed hill? Conditions at Pico could be a lot worse if they aren't going to be making snow there.


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

nycskier said:


> The $299 Pico pass was not an early purchase but in season price. Meaning you didn't have to buy it in July but could get it in November (and I think even in December). So the comparison is not really apples to apples. The cheap Pico pass was available to purchase AFTER the cheap A41 pass deal expired.



Perhaps, but my point was the price was driven lower by the A41.



nycskier said:


> I think the people who should really be angry about this are the people who already bought a 2007-2008 Killington season pass.
> 
> They did so expecting a full season at both Killington and Pico. Now after they bought a pass they find out Pico will be closed Tue and Wed which in a sense reduces the value of the pass they just bought.



Interesting observation. JimG. will however argue that not that many people bought a K pass expecting to ski Pico on Tuesday or Wednesday...


----------



## 2knees (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Perhaps, but my point was the price was driven lower by the A41.
> )




i agree absolutely.  I may have misread Jims earlier post but it almost sounded like he was inferring Powdr introduced a cheap Pico pass for this year while in reality it already existed.

Regardless, its amazing the legs these killington/powdr topics get.  I can understand the frustration over some of the moves, ie shortened season at killington, but other moves just dont seem to be that big of a deal for the _majority_ of the people out there.  

Closing pico on tuesday and wednesday is not something that is going to negatively impact a big portion of the skiing public.  And last i knew, there wasnt much in the way of housing on slope at pico so i dont think there are too many property owners impacted.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 11, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> No I don't, what I said was I'd be pissed if I owned a condo at Pico and that those people must feel like they got a kick in the crotch.
> 
> You said basicly the same kinda thing when Kmart bond holders where pissed cause they lost there passes. You took a risk, that's the breaks. Well..yeah, but when the breaks don't go your way you can still be ticked off.
> 
> Marriage is a risk too, but I'd be mad if I came home and found my wife in bed with the mailman. Although, our mail person is a 30 year old woman, so maybe that could work out for me......hmmmm.




The condo owners at Pico and homeowners across the street could easily get together and subsidise 7-day operation at Pico.  As I understand it, the condo owners kicked Killington out as the operator of their rental business.  That may have been a very bad decision on their part that caused this.  Money talks and Pico is pretty freakin' empty midweek.

I don't own property at Pico.  I think this is great since it puts even less traffic at Pico so the skiing surface will be better.  If I'm up midweek, I'll be tempted to head there on Thursdays when there has been recent snow.

The lifetime pass thing is apples & oranges.  Those passes were sold decades ago.  Anybody who bought one made their money back tens of times over.  If you bought one as a resale in the years when ASC owned the resort, you deserve a big dope slap if you're complaining now.  We've all known for 6 years that ASC was going down.  It was only a matter of when.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 11, 2007)

2knees said:


> Closing pico on tuesday and wednesday is not something that is going to negatively impact a big portion of the skiing public.  And last i knew, there wasnt much in the way of housing on slope at pico so i dont think there are too many property owners impacted.




How would you feel about it if you were a property owner at Pico? Just ask yourself that....then answer if its a big deal.

I know if I had a condo in a rental program at Pico that id be pissed....whos going to rent it for a week or more at a clip if 2 days out of that week they STILL have to travel somewhere to ski????

M


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

2knees said:


> i agree absolutely.  I may have misread Jims earlier post but it almost sounded like he was inferring Powdr introduced a cheap Pico pass for this year while in reality it already existed.



Right. And the fact that Powdr did something to still be able to offer a "cheap" pass in and of itself is a good thing.



2knees said:


> Regardless, its amazing the legs these killington/powdr topics get.  I can understand the frustration over some of the moves, ie shortened season at killington, but other moves just dont seem to be that big of a deal for the _majority_ of the people out there.
> 
> Closing pico on tuesday and wednesday is not something that is going to negatively impact a big portion of the skiing public.  And last i knew, there wasnt much in the way of housing on slope at pico so i dont think there are too many property owners impacted.



Agreed. Dog days of summer, my friend...

I guess everyone just wants to hear some tangible _good _news out of Killington.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Interesting observation. JimG. will however argue that not that many people bought a K pass expecting to ski Pico on Tuesday or Wednesday...



Ah, you are becoming wise grasshopper.

I like nycskier's comments because he is true to his vision of what K/Pico should be. So despite my constant defense of the owners, they are going to have to deal with the die hard K skiers like him eventually.

It's clear he likes skiing there.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> How would you feel about it if you were a property owner at Pico? Just ask yourself that....then answer if its a big deal.
> 
> I know if I had a condo in a rental program at Pico that id be pissed....whos going to rent it for a week or more at a clip if 2 days out of that week they STILL have to travel somewhere to ski????
> 
> M



I'd be pissed at myself for not paying attention to what has been happening there and at K in the past 6 years. Pico has not been a skiing powerhouse for years. In fact, most of the posts here brag about how empty it always is. If that kind of performance made you confident as a property investor, I've got a bridge...

You make it sound like all this snuck up on them and then just got dumped on them with no warning.

That's just not true.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2007)

I don't get it...where do you expect the money to come from?  Who do you expect to pay to keep Pico open with no skiers, just so that you have the *option* to ski it at a cheap rate Tues-Wed non-holiday?  Who do you demand subsidize this?


----------



## nycskier (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I like nycskier's comments because he is true to his vision of what K/Pico should be. So despite my constant defense of the owners, they are going to have to deal with the die hard K skiers like him eventually.
> 
> It's clear he likes skiing there.



I do like skiing at Killington I guess that's why I care about the place. 

There is a community of us who commute up and ski there every or every other weekend. We want Killington to be the best. To be the Beast of the East.

My fear is that the new owners don't see things the same way and might be driving away the younger weekend "ski house crowd". Which is a shame becasue that has always been Killington's main demographic. 

Closing Pico on Tues and Wed really doesn't effect me. I've never skied Pico on a Tues or Wed. but its seems to be part of a trend.

Raising prices, cutting hours and firing staff seems to be what Powdr is all about and yes a lot of us customers aren't too happy about it.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Jul 11, 2007)

nycskier said:


> The $299 Pico pass was not an early purchase but in season price. Meaning you didn't have to buy it in July but could get it in November (and I think even in December). So the comparison is not really apples to apples. The cheap Pico pass was available to purchase AFTER the cheap A41 pass deal expired.



Actually, the in-season price was $499
$299 was trhe early-season price


----------



## Greg (Jul 11, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Actually, the in-season price was $499
> $299 was trhe early-season price



Welcome to the firestorm! Actually, Tom I think you'll see a bit more civility here than on K-zone...


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

Thankx for coming over Tom.  Up to date info good or bad helps everyone.


----------



## snowman (Jul 11, 2007)

MrMagic said:


> i think a poll might be in order: maybe in a new thread??
> 
> good that they are not open 7 days
> 
> ...



As a Pico skier?!?!? Your own ski day signature tally logs you with 2 days at Pico last year. 2 days out of 120 or so you had the option to ski there. Are you seriously sitting there telling me you're gonna have trouble snagging those 2 days again this year because the possible days you can ski there has shrunk to 95 or so?!?!? :smash:


----------



## Vortex (Jul 11, 2007)

snowman said:


> As a Pico skier?!?!? Your own ski day signature tally logs you with 2 days at Pico last year. 2 days out of 120 or so you had the option to ski there. Are you seriously sitting there telling me you're gonna have trouble snagging those 2 days again this year because the possible days you can ski there has shrunk to 95 or so?!?!? :smash:



That was funny,:lol:


----------



## dardevle (Jul 11, 2007)

I think for anyone to be able to bitch about this decision they had to of skied Pico more than 15 days last year.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

Greg said:


> Welcome to the firestorm! Actually, Tom I think you'll see a bit more civility here than on K-zone...



This has been the most interesting discussion I have yet had on any skiing forum. And it's branched out into 4 or 5 threads now, all about the same basic topic. 

It's good we have role players here who can be loyal to a point of view without trashing anyone else personally. 

Let it continue good people!


----------



## jimmer (Jul 11, 2007)

it seems like most of you dont even ski pico, witch is fine i havnt been there for some time now, but you gotta ask your self what if it happened to your home hill, id be really PO, as i pretty much ski only mid week, it would affect me alot. i just hope its not a sign of things to come. theres allready enough places that have closed there doors, we dont need any more.

 when we were kids we skiied pico alot, and i allways liked the place, just kinda far to drive, so when we head that way, we go to killington now, so i guess im part of there problem.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 11, 2007)

jimmer said:


> it seems like most of you dont even ski pico, witch is fine i havnt been there for some time now, but you gotta ask your self what if it happened to your home hill, id be really PO, as i pretty much ski only mid week, it would affect me alot. i just hope its not a sign of things to come. theres allready enough places that have closed there doors, we dont need any more.
> 
> when we were kids we skiied pico alot, and i allways liked the place, just kinda far to drive, so when we head that way, we go to killington now, so i guess im part of there problem.



I'll be the first to admit I'd be upset about it. And if they closed on the 2 days I could ski I would be livid. But I would also have to realize I am probably in a very small minority of skiers.

I would also first look at the big picture (the rest of the world outside of me) to see why these decisions are made. I would try to understand. And I would hope to justify staying at my current home hill anyway. You sure won't find me suddenly trashing the hill and owners, the place I've skied at for the past 25 years.

To me, that doesn't make sense. But that's me.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 11, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I would also first look at the big picture (the rest of the world outside of me) to see why these decisions are made. I would try to understand. And I would hope to justify staying at my current home hill anyway. You sure won't find me suddenly trashing the hill and owners, the place I've skied at for the past 25 years.



The problem, it isn't just this one issue, that I could tolerate, it's a variety of issues that they seem to be making poor decisions on....lifetime passes, season length, investment in the area, pricing....etc.

Also, I could understand doing this if Powdr had tried for a year or two to get people to ski Pico during the week, but they haven't done anything of that sort. I haven't seen any ads or promotions for Pico in the last 5 years, it's not much of a surprise that they aren't getting enough people there as many have forgotten about it. Basically, rather than try to fix the problem of not enough people midweek, they're just giving up before even starting and not opening midweek.


----------



## nycskier (Jul 11, 2007)

What is kind of funny about this whole thing is when ASC sold Killington I kept hoping that the new owners would plan to build a Pico interconnect now I am hoping that they just plan to keep Pico open.

I know Powdr just took over and I want to be patient but so far it seems like only bad news coming out of them.

Believe me I hope Powdr makes Killington and Pico a better place. But right now it seems that they are just making it a more expensive place with a shorter ski season.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 11, 2007)

threecy said:


> I don't get it...where do you expect the money to come from?  Who do you expect to pay to keep Pico open with no skiers, just so that you have the *option* to ski it at a cheap rate Tues-Wed non-holiday?  Who do you demand subsidize this?



By that logic most resorts would not operate mid-week. This is just another piece in the continuing trend for Powdr in which the bean counters are driving the decisions instead customer service.

If Powdr had any clue about customer service, ie meeting or exceeding customer expectations rather than cutting them off at the knees,  they would honor Pico passes at kmart on Tues/Wednesday on par, not making them pay $35. If the numbers are so low then it would not cost them much to do this. A small price to pay for a return in good will.


----------



## Zand (Jul 11, 2007)

If Wachusett closed Tuesdays and Wednesdays, yeah, I'd be pissed. But Pico is different. First, there are a lot less skiers there. Second, it has Killington right next door... whats the big deal about driving another 5 minutes?


----------



## snowman (Jul 11, 2007)

One of Wa's bread and butter crowds would be afterwork mon-fri crowds, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.

 I was thinking today about a way to turn Pico into a revenue creator, not loser, that would make everyone happy and get it back open 7 days a week. Night Skiing?!?!? K draws a good ski week crowd, and not everyone is a "apres ski type". Some people like to keep on skiing! Now, where they are operating K and Pico seperately, Powdr could potentially make their lift ticket money off the ski week crowds during the day a K, and have 10% of them show up at Pico at 4 pm forking over yet another $25 or so for night skiing and ON MOUNTAIN beer purchases?!?! Is the Rutland area not getting built up as well, creating a local mon-fri night skiing crowd?? Is there somewhere else around there offering night skiing or not? Feel free to shoot holes in my idea if I'm missing something, I'm not up on K region demographics.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 11, 2007)

snowman said:


> One of Wa's bread and butter crowds would be afterwork mon-fri crowds, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> I was thinking today about a way to turn Pico into a revenue creator, not loser, that would make everyone happy and get it back open 7 days a week. Night Skiing?!?!? K draws a good ski week crowd, and not everyone is a "apres ski type". Some people like to keep on skiing! Now, where they are operating K and Pico seperately, Powdr could potentially make their lift ticket money off the ski week crowds during the day a K, and have 10% of them show up at Pico at 4 pm forking over yet another $25 or so for night skiing and ON MOUNTAIN beer purchases?!?! Is the Rutland area not getting built up as well, creating a local mon-fri night skiing crowd?? Is there somewhere else around there offering night skiing or not? Feel free to shoot holes in my idea if I'm missing something, I'm not up on K region demographics.



I think that would be a great idea but from Powdr's bottom line mentality the cost of putting in the lights won't help the profit margin they want to make in the first couple of years. 

They have stated several times that they need to turn a profit to be able to invest and improve kmart. No profits, no improvements.


----------



## nycskier (Jul 11, 2007)

snowman said:


> One of Wa's bread and butter crowds would be afterwork mon-fri crowds, so that's not going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> I was thinking today about a way to turn Pico into a revenue creator, not loser, that would make everyone happy and get it back open 7 days a week. Night Skiing?!?!? K draws a good ski week crowd, and not everyone is a "apres ski type". Some people like to keep on skiing! Now, where they are operating K and Pico seperately, Powdr could potentially make their lift ticket money off the ski week crowds during the day a K, and have 10% of them show up at Pico at 4 pm forking over yet another $25 or so for night skiing and ON MOUNTAIN beer purchases?!?! Is the Rutland area not getting built up as well, creating a local mon-fri night skiing crowd?? Is there somewhere else around there offering night skiing or not? Feel free to shoot holes in my idea if I'm missing something, I'm not up on K region demographics.



Totally agree! I always thought Pico would be perfect place for night skiing and even night tubbing. I even mentioned this in the missed opportunities thread. Adding night skiing to Pico and maybe building a new bar/night club (a 2nd Wobbly) in the parking lot could really make it an attraction.


----------



## snowman (Jul 11, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I think that would be a great idea but from Powdr's bottom line mentality the cost of putting in the lights won't help the profit margin they want to make in the first couple of years.
> 
> They have stated several times that they need to turn a profit to be able to invest and improve kmart. No profits, no improvements.




Well...shutting down Pico Tues, Wed's for a year or 2 might be what they need to do to save enough money to put lights on 3 or 4 trails and bring it back 7 days a week + nights. Lights are the only thing I can think of to dramatically change the revenue stream there, and since how they don't have them yet, no point losing cash in the meantime.


----------



## snoseek (Jul 11, 2007)

maybe areas like cannon, wildcat, saddleback, ect should close midweek also, because i'm pretty sure they are not making much for profit. 

why do hotels bother to have dining? most are budgeted to lose. maybe because any decent hotel will make more money overall if they provide the services people want. More services=more prestige=more $$$. Does anyone get my drift?


----------



## marcski (Jul 11, 2007)

Agreed about night skiing....or anything ..they need to find their niche. I mentioned this earlier in this thread whether its night skiing or local HS racing (or both!) or anything.  Just something.  At least give it a try and then they could honestly say, hey, we tried, didn't work that way, we have to close on less profitable (or none at all) days to keep spinning the lifts at all. This seems to be just another slap in the face to the areas' long time skiers.


----------



## snowman (Jul 11, 2007)

nycskier said:


> Totally agree! I always thought Pico would be perfect place for night skiing and even night tubbing. I even mentioned this in the missed opportunities thread. Adding night skiing to Pico and maybe building a new bar/night club (a 2nd Wobbly) in the parking lot could really make it an attraction.



Ok, no need to get all crazy though and start building K village at Pico :grin: And when I said ON MOUNTAIN beer sales, I meant at the lodge bar, not tub girls on the mountain, before anyone gets that idea, as great as that would be, lol :-D


----------



## snowman (Jul 11, 2007)

marcski said:


> I mentioned this earlier in this thread whether its night skiing or local HS racing (or both!) or anything.  .



Ooops, I missed that in the sea of responses. I thought I was the first to mention this idea and was wondering why no one else mentioned it. I figured there must have been something else close night skiing wise that I didn't know about and was waiting to get shot down. I guess I just elaborated on why it would be a good idea more than you did.


----------



## snowman (Jul 12, 2007)

I was just familiarizing myself with their trail map and am even more sold on the night skiing idea. Lighting 2000 vert is daunting, but I didn't know they had a split quad set up. The place friggin' screams night skiing. How much vert is there off the lower quad and how much off the knubs knoll lift? I'd light trails off either/both of those. I'm thinking the lower quad is 1200 vert. Nice night skiing  I love night skiing myself. It's sometimes a deal breaker on one place vs. another. If one has night skiing or night skiing nearby, and the other leaves you sitting in the woods for 16 hours listening to the snow guns roaring, I go for the night skiing. Night skiing has the potential to make Pico much more profitable and even drive more destination biz to K.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm getting tired of hearing something, that being that Powdr needs to make money at K before they can invest in K. Since when does a company take a product that has been made mediocre by it's previous owners, make it more mediocre, raise the price and expect to turn a profit? To make matters worst, I'm seeing a lot of people trying to rationalize this idea. I'm not a rich man so I may not know what I'm talking about, but I was under the impression that you need to invest in a product, especially when there is so much competition around, make it as attractive as possible and then market it.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 12, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> JiminyG talkin his crazy talk again. So you thinkin being open only 5 days a week is going to help property values for those folks who own condos at the base of Pico?


HPD speaks some truth. Property values certainly are not going up after this announcement. And folks renting out condos will certainly loose some mid-week revenue. Sure, you can just say people can ski Kmart instead, but if they are skiing Kmart then they are probably going to find properties and condos closer to Kmart than Pico. The base areas are not exactly right next to each other.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> By that logic most resorts would not operate mid-week. This is just another piece in the continuing trend for Powdr in which the bean counters are driving the decisions instead customer service.
> 
> If Powdr had any clue about customer service, ie meeting or exceeding customer expectations rather than cutting them off at the knees,  they would honor Pico passes at kmart on Tues/Wednesday on par, not making them pay $35. If the numbers are so low then it would not cost them much to do this. A small price to pay for a return in good will.



Most resorts don't have a much larger, more superior sister resort 5 minutes away.

I think people need to understand that this is the ski BUSINESS, not the ski CHARITY.  You can't just throw away money, especially after you just spent $80M+.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 12, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> A small price to pay for a return in good will.


Good will means an awful lot in business. I make good will a top priority in my operations and will gladly sacrifice short term profitability for long term dedicated customers who appreciate doing business with my operation. That is the thing that concerns me most about this trend (and lets start talking about this Pico thing as a general trend instead of an isolated incident because it is part of a trend) which is yet another issue that has generated ill will and given people the impression that the new ownership is cutting back on services, raising prices, and giving anything back to the customers. You could argue the cheaper season pass at Pico is giving something back but not for nothing they took away three days of potential skiing. Empty or not, those three days meant something to quite a few people that took advantage and what ski area isn't empty mid-week? My main argument is that while I think Powdr is making some great financial and business decisions, I think they are reaching the point that they are pissing too many customers (and potential customers) off with cut throat decisions. The topic of taking over for another business is interesting because I am involved in such an operational issue. We are trying to over deliver and increase services while maintaining prices. This is an exceptional time for Powdr to change the face of Killington/Pico and earn back business and customers that ASC lost. Will they squander the opportunity? This is a trend, will it change or will the cost cutting continue at the expense of the consumer? If it continues, will they loose said consumers to the competition that offers more (even if the competition charges more?)? These are the bigger issues at stake here and only time will tell if Powdr played their cards right or not.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 12, 2007)

threecy said:


> Most resorts don't have a much larger, more superior sister resort 5 minutes away.
> 
> I think people need to understand that this is the ski BUSINESS, not the ski CHARITY. You can't just throw away money, especially after you just spent $80M+.


 
As in my above post, you need to spend money in order to make money. If you can't afford to market a superior product in a highly competitive region, perhaps you shouldn't have spent 80 million.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

andyzee said:


> As in my above post, you need to spend money in order to make money. If you can't afford to market a superior product in a highly competitive region, perhaps you shouldn't have spent 80 million.



Every indication I've heard is that they will be working to rebuild a superior product at Killington (and boy do they have a long way to go, but I digress).  Having Pico open Tues/Wed non-holiday does nothing for SP/Powdr except lose money.  When you have a massive area like Killington next door, why compete with it when your skier visits are the lowest?

The closest NE areas have come to cracking the midweek non-holiday code is to pull in school groups/school racing programs/get (sub)urban skiers.  This doesn't work all that well with an empty, run down, 2,000 vertical step child with no night skiing.  If you think SP/Powdr is getting bad press now, see what it would be like if they tried to get night skiing approval.

The limited Pico season pass deal sounds more than fair to me - if I lived in that area and liked Pico, I'd jump at the offer.

5 days a week under SP/Powdr is a better scenario than 7 days a week for a bankrupt ASC.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 12, 2007)

threecy said:


> Every indication I've heard is that they will be working to rebuild a superior product at Killington (and boy do they have a long way to go, but I digress). Having Pico open Tues/Wed non-holiday does nothing for SP/Powdr except lose money. When you have a massive area like Killington next door, why compete with it when your skier visits are the lowest?
> 
> The closest NE areas have come to cracking the midweek non-holiday code is to pull in school groups/school racing programs/get (sub)urban skiers. This doesn't work all that well with an empty, run down, 2,000 vertical step child with no night skiing. If you think SP/Powdr is getting bad press now, see what it would be like if they tried to get night skiing approval.
> 
> ...


 
Personally I have no argument with the 5 day schedule for Pico, I agree with you. I'm looking at the overall picture and it bothers me when they say the need to make money to spend money. I feel the need to offer a superior product and in order to do so, they need to spend now. If they don't have the investment capital to make Killington a superior product, then I don't believe they should have purchased it.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Personally I have no argument with the 5 day schedule for Pico, I agree with you. I'm looking at the overall picture and it bothers me when they say the need to make money to spend money. I feel the need to offer a superior product and in order to do so, they need to spend now. If they don't have the investment capital to make Killington a superior product, then I don't believe they should have purchased it.



In the ski industry it's wise to spend what you have whenever possible.  If SP/Powdr went out and borrowed a bunch of money for improvements, they'd be making the same mistake that sunk ASC.

Clean up the mess you have first, then build on it.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> I want the most superior product at the lowest cost, why should my attitude be any different than anyother business out there .. You want my money? Earn it...



Nothing wrong with that...for that reason I haven't skied Killington in awhile, nor do I plan to anytime soon.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 12, 2007)

Powdr sold Alpine Meadows a couple of months before they bought kmart so they have some cash. In view of the need to fix kmart 3m they are spending their first year is chump change considering that Sugarbush is in the middle of a 60+m improvement, Stowe is spending over 100m and  Okemo opened Jackson Gore a couple of years ago. instead of moving forward they are falling further behind in my view.


----------



## Vinny (Jul 12, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Personally I have no argument with the 5 day schedule for Pico, I agree with you. I'm looking at the overall picture and it bothers me when they say the need to make money to spend money. I feel the need to offer a superior product and in order to do so, they need to spend now. If they don't have the investment capital to make Killington a superior product, then I don't believe they should have purchased it.



That's a very valid point. It just doesn't make sense to cut back on operations/services immediately after the purchase of a service business.  Pico doesn't look like a potential cash cow by any means, although I really don't know for sure.  My bet is that they're going to bleed Pico, and it won't be under their umbrella in 5 years or so.  Having said that, it also doesn't look like there are any terrific plans for Killington.  So, although I'm certain these guys and gals know more than I do about what they bought, it's a mystery to me how their long term plan is going to be good for them and the skiers.  IMHO, the way it's rolling out, this is looking like a future bust.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Powdr sold Alpine Meadows a couple of months before they bought kmart so they have some cash. In view of the need to fix kmart 3m they are spending their first year is chump change considering that Sugarbush is in the middle of a 60+m improvement, Stowe is spending over 100m and  Okemo opened Jackson Gore a couple of years ago. instead of moving forward they are falling further behind in my view.



Mt. Snow is getting mass praise for putting in 2.5m in snowmaking.


----------



## nycskier (Jul 12, 2007)

I can't believe this tread has gone over 100 posts without any discussion of the interconnect!

Has Powdr said anything on this subject?


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 12, 2007)

They said awhile back that it is currently on the back burner as they need to make some money and develope the village before they can invest in the inter-connect.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 12, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> They said awhile back that it is currently on the back burner as they need to make some money and develope the village before they can invest in the inter-connect.



I thought it was the Vermont APA holding that up for years anyway. Something to do with being able to see chairlifts from the App. Trail?


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> I thought it was the Vermont APA holding that up for years anyway. Something to do with being able to see chairlifts from the App. Trail?



I think that may have been resolved - the AT/LT now go around the other side of Pico.  The one trail that's been cut is easily skiable.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 12, 2007)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Powdr sold Alpine Meadows a couple of months before they bought kmart so they have some cash. In view of the need to fix kmart 3m they are spending their first year is chump change considering that Sugarbush is in the middle of a 60+m improvement, Stowe is spending over 100m and  Okemo opened Jackson Gore a couple of years ago. instead of moving forward they are falling further behind in my view.



Apples & oranges.  You are mixing condo development with infrastructure development.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 12, 2007)

Geoff said:


> Apples & oranges.  You are mixing condo development with infrastructure development.


True...but improvements are improvements.


----------



## thebigo (Jul 12, 2007)

> I thought it was the Vermont APA holding that up for years anyway. Something to do with being able to see chairlifts from the App. Trail?



The only thing holding up the interconnect is demand and dollars. I read somewhere that powdr said it was atleast ten years away.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

riverc0il said:


> HPD speaks some truth. Property values certainly are not going up after this announcement. And folks renting out condos will certainly loose some mid-week revenue. Sure, you can just say people can ski Kmart instead, but if they are skiing Kmart then they are probably going to find properties and condos closer to Kmart than Pico. The base areas are not exactly right next to each other.



My point was that the decrease in property value started years ago at Pico, not when POWDR took over.

Pico was not a vibrant place with soaring property values that overnight went in the dumper because POWDR now owns it. So, if property values were a big concern, most of the people who were concerned should have sold long ago.

If they weren't paying attention and are now concerned, whose fault is that?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Personally I have no argument with the 5 day schedule for Pico, I agree with you. I'm looking at the overall picture and it bothers me when they say the need to make money to spend money. I feel the need to offer a superior product and in order to do so, they need to spend now. If they don't have the investment capital to make Killington a superior product, then I don't believe they should have purchased it.



Andy, isn't the "spend money to make money" scenario what got ASC into trouble? They never made enough money. 

Here's a thought...if POWDR did that and went bankrupt too, would anyone step up to save Killington?


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Andy, isn't the "spend money to make money" scenario what got ASC into trouble? They never made enough money.



No, ASC's problem was...more "spend money we don't have, and hope the increases in profits will pay it off."

Killington is a profitable mountain but, as it hasn't seen any major investment in the past 7 years, and has barely even seen matinence, it needs a lot more that $3 million to get it back up to the proper level. That $3m will not even fix everything that is broken/worn-out from ASC's neglect. If they want to offer a product that is on par with their competition (which they do, based on their pricing), they need to make a fairly large investment, instead of cutting as much as they can, and not making any improvements (bathrooms do NOT count).


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> My point was that the decrease in property value started years ago at Pico, not when POWDR took over.
> 
> Pico was not a vibrant place with soaring property values that overnight went in the dumper because POWDR now owns it. So, if property values were a big concern, most of the people who were concerned should have sold long ago.
> 
> If they weren't paying attention and are now concerned, whose fault is that?



You're still dancing around my orginal post. Closing 2 days every week has to hurt the condos value at Pico's base. It doesn't matter if values where already slipping or not. Closing the 2 days has to hurt there value even more.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> No, ASC's problem was...more "spend money we don't have, and hope the increases in profits will pay it off."
> 
> Killington is a profitable mountain but, as it hasn't seen any major investment in the past 7 years, and has barely even seen matinence, it needs a lot more that $3 million to get it back up to the proper level. That $3m will not even fix everything that is broken/worn-out from ASC's neglect. If they want to offer a product that is on par with their competition (which they do, based on their pricing), they need to make a fairly large investment, instead of cutting as much as they can, and not making any improvements (bathrooms do NOT count).



Yes, that was implied between the lines. What you said could describe the common homeowner...anybody here pay cash for their house?

If Killington is profitable then POWDR will make money and improve it. I have no doubt it can be profitable, and I have no doubt that ASC took the profits and spent them elsewhere. Blame ASC for that, not POWDR. You can blame ASC too if their performance has POWDR spooked and a bit cautious. And you can blame ASC if POWDR wants to make some money and proceed slowly.

I will bet you today there are speculators out there who will buy that property in this market at a discount and take the same type of risk these condo owners took years ago. And it's not a loss until they sell it. Those who hold on may benefit richly in the future.

There are many folks who want instant gratification. And I sense alot of resentment towards POWDR that should probably be directed at ASC (RIP). But the race goes to the sure and steady. A tough scenario for POWDR.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Risk...you used that word.
> 
> Risk is the domain of the buyer and it's personal. It's up to the individual to determine their level of risk and what makes them comfortable.
> 
> ...



Not dancing. I clearly acknowledged they should be pissed right here.

Just not for the reason you think they should be pissed.


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I'd be pissed at myself for not paying attention to what has been happening there and at K in the past 6 years. Pico has not been a skiing powerhouse for years. In fact, most of the posts here brag about how empty it always is. If that kind of performance made you confident as a property investor, I've got a bridge...
> 
> You make it sound like all this snuck up on them and then just got dumped on them with no warning.
> 
> That's just not true.



Ummm when were any property owners "WARNED" that the new management would reduce the days the mtn operated??? I THINK...ummm NEVER....

Its not property investors...im talking about people who've owned property there for years....this is lame....there are in FACT lots of families that go to Pico for a week at a clip...well NO MORE...thanks to ASC..

Its really easy to say its cool of them to close the mtn certain days when YOU dont ski there JIM...how would it feel if they closed Hunter 2 days mid week???

Its also been said that there are many other smaller resorts that seem to be able to open 7 days a week even without condos on premise....its also been said that ASC found some way to run it 7 days a week during their tenure too...sooo....

I love when people say "its a good decision" when its not there mtn....they'd all be singing a different tune if it was the mtn they skied on regularly..

M


----------



## snowman (Jul 12, 2007)

Vinny said:


> That's a very valid point. It just doesn't make sense to cut back on operations/services immediately after the purchase of a service business.  Pico doesn't look like a potential cash cow by any means, although I really don't know for sure.  My bet is that they're going to bleed Pico, and it won't be under their umbrella in 5 years or so.  Having said that, it also doesn't look like there are any terrific plans for Killington.  So, although I'm certain these guys and gals know more than I do about what they bought, it's a mystery to me how their long term plan is going to be good for them and the skiers.  IMHO, the way it's rolling out, this is looking like a future bust.



Powdr has 2 ways they can go: running Pico as a second seperate revenue generating enterprise at ground zero for the North East ski Industry, or treat it as something they got stuck with in a deal, have no interest in it, run it into the ground, and sell it. I see no benefit at all in the interconnect now. You can't raise ticket and pass prices higher than they already are. You're best off marketing both seperately and hope all the skiers who frequent the valley buy into both. 

If they purge Pico off their books, anyone who has a clue and who wants into the ski biz (those 2 kinda cancel each other out, but oh well) would have to be crazy to not be interested in it. With all those skiers right there you could easily do well with night skiing. The second thing one has to understand is that a huge percentage of the people that go to Killington don't know how to ski and are just there to be there, a lot like Aspen. Pico could have a winter long concert series of major acts and kill Killington on weekend ticket sales. In the meantime, all those people who can barely ski would be discovering Pico's terrain is better suited to them anyway, maybe landing Pico as the new place to be "seen", stomping Killington at it's own game.   Pico :flag::uzi: Big K


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

snowman said:


> Powdr has 2 ways they can go: running Pico as a second seperate revenue generating enterprise at ground zero for the North East ski Industry, or treat it as something they got stuck with in a deal, have no interest in it, run it into the ground, and sell it. I see no benefit at all in the interconnect now. You can't raise ticket and pass prices higher than they already are. You're best off marketing both seperately and hope all the skiers who frequent the valley buy into both.
> 
> If they purge Pico off their books, anyone who has a clue and who wants into the ski biz (those 2 kinda cancel each other out, but oh well) would have to be crazy to not be interested in it. With all those skiers right there you could easily do well with night skiing. The second thing one has to understand is that a huge percentage of the people that go to Killington don't know how to ski and are just there to be there, a lot like Aspen. Pico could have a winter long concert series of major acts and kill Killington on weekend ticket sales. In the meantime, all those people who can barely ski would be discovering Pico's terrain is better suited to them anyway, maybe landing Pico as the new place to be "seen", stomping Killington at it's own game.   Pico :flag::uzi: Big K



I like people who think big.

I choose option 2.


----------



## snowman (Jul 12, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Ummm when were any property owners "WARNED" that the new management would reduce the days the mtn operated??? I THINK...ummm NEVER....
> 
> Its not property investors...im talking about people who've owned property there for years....this is lame....there are in FACT lots of families that go to Pico for a week at a clip...well NO MORE...thanks to ASC..
> 
> ...




Someone else already answered this. All these other mountains you talk about don't have a tram leaving their parking lot every 2 minutes to the beast of the east which is 5 minutes away and owned by the same company. Pico right now is just another mountain at K. The only difference is the first lift you take is a trolly. If K announced Spruce Peak was going to be closed midweek, every week, no one would even bat an eyelash.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Ummm when were any property owners "WARNED" that the new management would reduce the days the mtn operated??? I THINK...ummm NEVER....
> 
> Its not property investors...im talking about people who've owned property there for years....this is lame....there are in FACT lots of families that go to Pico for a week at a clip...well NO MORE...thanks to ASC..
> 
> ...



You're standing there...there are 2 parallel metal rails that disappear into the horizon with wooden ties holding them together. You feel vibrations on those tracks. Then there's a light on the horizon, and the high pitched sqeal of a whistle coming closer...

Some folks get off the track and some folks stand there and get hit.

After all the years of neglect, these people need more warning? Billboards? Skywriting?

Give me a break. And you must think POWDR is the white knight come to save you, or a genie to make all your wishes come true. Let's get real.

We're getting warmed up now. Go SkiDog!!


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> My point was that the decrease in property value started years ago at Pico, not when POWDR took over.
> 
> Pico was not a vibrant place with soaring property values that overnight went in the dumper because POWDR now owns it. So, if property values were a big concern, most of the people who were concerned should have sold long ago.
> 
> If they weren't paying attention and are now concerned, whose fault is that?



Its ASC's fault and now Powdr/SPLands fault...ASC's for never promoting PICO and now Powdr/SPLand for TOTALLY ABANDONING Pico without ever giving it a shot....

I for one..know that the old "tele tuesdays" brought a decent crowd to Pico...where does that go??? What about all the high school programs???? 

Totally lame....Pico IS a great mountain........its the MANAGEMENT and MARKETING THAT SUCK......

M


----------



## snowman (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I like people who think big.
> 
> I choose option 2.




Thanks  Step one, location, location, location. Step 2, understand who your customer is and what his or her needs are. Step three, fullfill those needs. Step four, hire a good armoured car service :grin:


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Its ASC's fault and now Powdr/SPLands fault...ASC's for never promoting PICO and now Powdr/SPLand for TOTALLY ABANDONING Pico without ever giving it a shot....
> 
> I for one..know that the old "tele tuesdays" brought a decent crowd to Pico...where does that go??? What about all the high school programs????
> 
> ...



Are you always so negative?

Dog, they've owned the place barely 2 months. They haven't even had a winter of operation yet. You have no idea what the decisions now might lead to in the future, and you don't know their whole plan.  

Shhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> You're standing there...there are 2 parallel metal rails that disappear into the horizon with wooden ties holding them together. You feel vibrations on those tracks. Then there's a light on the horizon, and the high pitched sqeal of a whistle coming closer...
> 
> Some folks get off the track and some folks stand there and get hit.
> 
> ...



Well all I can say Jim...is I now HOPE it happend to Hunter...youll be singing a MUCH different tune then....

Those condos were and are still worth something...Pico is not an NELSAP....its a VIABLE mtn....with the CORRECT management.....but hey....POWDR shouldnt even give it a chance apparently...

Oh and if you didnt know...property values fluctuate......they ALWAYS do.....ups and downs...these people were likely holding out for a new management co to come in and MAYBE make some changes for the better...they got BONED and now are totally screwed...there was NO WARNING.....no matter what you may think...

Yeah also...how do you think MY property values up at Killington are now with POWDRS awesome management???? LOWER AND LOWER EVERYDAY...should I have heard that train coming too??? 

Cmon man...get real....THINK ABOUT HOW YOU'D FEEL......that mtn CAN make money...just like KILLINGTON USED to make money....and still can.

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Are you always so negative?
> 
> Dog, they've owned the place barely 2 months. They haven't even had a winter of operation yet. You have no idea what the decisions now might lead to in the future, and you don't know their whole plan.
> 
> Shhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!




DUDE and in those short 2 months what have they done...NOTHING BUT TAKE THINGS AWAY...HOW CAN I BE ANYTHING BUT NEGATIVE..man I own friggin property there...EVER think of that??? What theyve done in the short time they've already had has dropped my property values EXPONENTIALLY.... and now they are talking about limiting services at lodges mid week....??? There hasnt been one piece of good news yet...and im supposed to "give them a chance"? How WOULD YOU FEEL??? (pissed is not a valid answer)

There has to be some GIVE with the TAKE.....

One day the Slutzky's will be gone and you'll be singing a different tune....

M


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Are you always so negative?
> 
> Dog, they've owned the place barely 2 months. They haven't even had a winter of operation yet. You have no idea what the decisions now might lead to in the future, and you don't know their whole plan.
> 
> Shhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!



How would you feel if hunter took away all the "locals" discounts and incentives???

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> Well all I can say Jim...is I now HOPE it happend to Hunter...youll be singing a MUCH different tune then....
> 
> Those condos were and are still worth something...Pico is not an NELSAP....its a VIABLE mtn....with the CORRECT management.....but hey....POWDR shouldnt even give it a chance apparently...
> 
> ...



I apologize...I keep forgetting you own at K and this issue is of real substance to you. I'm just discussing this and I'm fascinated by how it will play out. You're right, I have no money in play, I don't own at Hunter, and I ski weekends so mid week closings mean nothing to me. So it's easy for me to talk.

Keeping the discussion alive and stirring things up might get someone of influence interested. There are eyes here that do not post. These threads are watched and your heartfelt posts might make a difference.

Would you sound as obviously pissed if you sat down to write a letter to POWDR and didn't have a foil to be angry at?


----------



## SkiDog (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I apologize...I keep forgetting you own at K and this issue is of real substance to you. I'm just discussing this and I'm fascinated by how it will play out. You're right, I have no money in play, I don't own at Hunter, and I ski weekends so mid week closings mean nothing to me. So it's easy for me to talk.
> 
> Keeping the discussion alive and stirring things up might get someone of influence interested. There are eyes here that do not post. These threads are watched and your heartfelt posts might make a difference.
> 
> Would you sound as obviously pissed if you sat down to write a letter to POWDR and didn't have a foil to be angry at?




A letter to POWDR would be a waste of my time and ink......it would get shuffled aside with all the others...they OBVIOUSLY dont care about the "core" customer...or locals for that matter...and it stinks...aside from literally going up there to every ski swap and standing in front of Killington with signs I dont think anything will change whats happening...

I DO appreciate your Rabble Rousing though...... ;-) keeps my day semi exciting..

M


----------



## JimG. (Jul 12, 2007)

SkiDog said:


> I DO appreciate your Rabble Rousing though...... ;-) keeps my day semi exciting..
> 
> M



Hey, I resemble that remark!


----------



## andyzee (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Andy, isn't the "spend money to make money" scenario what got ASC into trouble? They never made enough money.
> 
> Here's a thought...if POWDR did that and went bankrupt too, would anyone step up to save Killington?


 

Jim, you ignorant slut!  (sorry been dying to use that line) Yes, borrowing is what got ASC in trouble. But was it borrowing to improve the mountain, or borrowing to pay off losses from other operations that they never should have been in? Not sure what is fact and what is fiction, but the common belief is that Killlington was always a money maker for them. The only issue is that money was siphoned off to other operations and Killington and even more so Pico were neglected. I believe to once again get Killlinton to where it was in terms of profitability, money needs to be spent and needs to be spent now in order to improve operations and make the mountain more desireable to the consumer. There is just far too much competition in the area. I myself love Killington, but with what I'm seeing, I may give it one more year and if in that time I don't see some improvements I moving on. Plenty of others are feeling the same.

I love Sugarbush(hey Win  ) the only thing that has kept me from going there is the drive. Guess what, the drive due to poor operations, is suddenly not looking bad. Will most definetly be checking out Whiteface/Gore this year, same distance for me as K. . Going elsewhere may cost me more, but it's not only about the expense, it's also about the product. Bottom line, I'm not the only one feeling this way, others will be moving on as well if they see a shortened season, less choices and higher prices. Why put up with it if there is better down the road? Powdr is giving themselves X number of years to invest and improve, but will the public do the same? Which will be more expensive, putting in the investment now, or the potential loss over the years?


----------



## Vinny (Jul 12, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Are you always so negative?
> 
> Dog, they've owned the place barely 2 months. They haven't even had a winter of operation yet. You have no idea what the decisions now might lead to in the future, and you don't know their whole plan.
> 
> Shhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!




I think Dog has a point.  You don't need a year of operations to at least have a feel of how a company is going to handle a new acquistion. Heck, companies do dog and pony shows for venture caps where your whole pitch is just a few hours long.  The way you come out of the box means a lot IMO, and PWDR is just blowing it so far.  

Compare the vibe of Killington/Pico to Mt. Snow right now, and tell me who you think is doing a better job of promotion so far.  Also, who appears to be more vested into improving their operations and customer service?  What marketing value do you think each has derived to date?

Closing Pico for two days a week to improve cash flow this early in the game?  That's a heck of a lot of advertising dollars they just tossed in the basket, and it doesn't give me a great feeling about their willingness to target better profitability via a long term improved product.  It's too early in the game granted, but I don't like the way this one smells.  At this very early point, I think, long term, it's going to be a bust.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2007)

It's not SP/Powdr's fault that people bought/own condos in the Killington/Pico area - it's a risk the buyer takes.  How do you think the condo/house owners at Haystack, Tenney, and Timber Ridge feel?

SP/Powdr could have very easily shut down Pico except for weekends and holidays, jacked up the day price at K-Mart to $85 and the entry level season pass to $1000, and not put a dime back into each mountain - and still made a profit.  They didn't.  They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.

So much whining.  Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way.  Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so.  At the end of the day, they own the area/rights.  Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere.  They're there to run a business, not a charity.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 12, 2007)

threecy said:


> It's not SP/Powdr's fault that people bought/own condos in the Killington/Pico area - it's a risk the buyer takes. How do you think the condo/house owners at Haystack, Tenney, and Timber Ridge feel?
> 
> SP/Powdr could have very easily shut down Pico except for weekends and holidays, jacked up the day price at K-Mart to $85 and the entry level season pass to $1000, and not put a dime back into each mountain - and still made a profit. They didn't. They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.
> 
> So much whining. Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way. Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so. At the end of the day, they own the area/rights. Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere. They're there to run a business, not a charity.


 

Bet they run it into the ground :lol:


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> It's not SP/Powdr's fault that people bought/own condos in the Killington/Pico area - it's a risk the buyer takes.  How do you think the condo/house owners at Haystack, Tenney, and Timber Ridge feel?
> 
> SP/Powdr could have very easily shut down Pico except for weekends and holidays, jacked up the day price at K-Mart to $85 and the entry level season pass to $1000, and not put a dime back into each mountain - and still made a profit.  They didn't.  They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.
> 
> So much whining.  Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way.  Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so.  At the end of the day, they own the area/rights.  Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere.  They're there to run a business, not a charity.



And they are free to run it poorly, just as we are free to complain about it. I don't recall being approached by ASC or any investment bank and being asked if I wanted to purchase  Killington (if so, I would have bid at least $425.37), so not everyone here had the opportunity. If we stop complaining, then we are reduced to endless "who are your 5 favorite lift operators" polls. I'll take the complaining.

All this being said, I wasn't going to ski Pico mid week anyway, good for them.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 13, 2007)

andyzee said:


> As in my above post, you need to spend money in order to make money. If you can't afford to market a superior product in a highly competitive region, perhaps you shouldn't have spent 80 million.



Heh,
According to the mentality of some, NE ski can only be competitive if they open exactly 3 times a season on man made hard pack. Apparently there simply is no demand for skiing in the northeast, and what there is is highly inelastic. 

Meanwhile I dream of a summer trip to New Zealand.


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.



This is not the whole story. Peak is investing $2.5M into *snowmaking* improvements at Mount Snow. That's *in addition* to $2M in base area improvements. So it's really $4.5M for Mount Snow alone. Let's also remember they're also investing another $2.5M in snowmaking at Attitash. So Powdr is investing $3.5M into both K and Pico, while Peaks has doubled that investment for Mount Snow and Attitash; two significantly smaller areas in terms of terrain, mind you. Haystack was closed long before all this so I'm not sure how that relates.



threecy said:


> So much whining.  Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way.  Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so.  At the end of the day, they own the area/rights.  Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere.  They're there to run a business, not a charity.



My biggest complaint is Powdr has not done a good job on the PR front, especially compared to Peak who has totally owned them. It should be interesting to see what Boyne does. They get the benefit from watching what these other two companies did with their former ASC resorts and the reactions to it. Peak and Powdr are taking two different approaches. It will be interesting to see which comes out ahead in the long run. Peak's announcements get people excited, while Powdr seems to just piss more people off. I still think they're just getting all the housecleaning out of the way now and the good news should start coming. The only thing anyone can hope for is underpromise/overdeliver.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

OldsnowboarderME said:


> It's not difficult to figure how much money you will make if your closed ... it's a poor corporate decision. Should supermarkets close on Tuesdays because they don't make a lot of money that day? If your not open your out of mind with no potential for future customers. If I am going to make a decision on a pass, I think I will go with the ski area that's open 7 days a week. Sounds like Powr bought an expensive car and now can't afford the gas or insurance to put it on the road.



Certainly, but in this case Killington is a super market and Pico is more of a ma and pa store.  Pico is not what it once was, and probably never will be unless its connected to KMart.  For Monday-Friday workers, being closed Tues-Wed non-holiday doesn't make much of a difference at all - especially when the target market is hours away.  If it were Wachusett closing Tues-Wed, we'd have a big difference.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 13, 2007)

MadPadraic said:


> ..........All this being said, I wasn't going to ski Pico mid week anyway, good for them.


Exactly, it's a simple solution....Pico is a weekend-alternative to the larger Kmart, not a weekday mountain...determined by the numbers.   I think most mountains in the NE have a day where they're in the red...and I think we all agree that they _have_ to make some tough decisions....at least for a while.   The mountains aren't going Anywhere;-)...they'll always be there....


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

One thing that's interesting here is that no one has suggested the skiers who WANT to ski Pico Tues-Wed get together and show Pico the money - make a commitment to them that there is sufficient interest and that if they reverse the decision, they will buy passes.


----------



## Vinny (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> It's not SP/Powdr's fault that people bought/own condos in the Killington/Pico area - it's a risk the buyer takes.  How do you think the condo/house owners at Haystack, Tenney, and Timber Ridge feel?
> 
> SP/Powdr could have very easily shut down Pico except for weekends and holidays, jacked up the day price at K-Mart to $85 and the entry level season pass to $1000, and not put a dime back into each mountain - and still made a profit.  They didn't.  They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.
> 
> So much whining.  Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way.  Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so.  At the end of the day, they own the area/rights.  Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere.  They're there to run a business, not a charity.



Agree and disagree.

I totally agree with the real estate risk when buying a ski home.  Anyone who buys an east coast ski property as an investment or even hoping to break even upon resale is making a tremendously risky decision and shouldn't be surprised when markets change.  Actually, most ski/vacation homes fall into this category.  When they go down, they often decline at a much more rapid pace than standard home simply because there are far fewer potential buyers than standard residences.  Ski/vacation home decisions should be based primarily on utility.  If you feel you'll get enough use compared to what you paid, then it's a wise decision.  If the value goes up great, if not, it still can be considered a worthwhile purchase.  Having said all that, we do own property at Snow knowing that as a resale we may very well lose $$.

I disagree with the selected Pico/Killington comparison for reasons that Greg and others spelled out earlier.  When comparing investment plans on a size basis it's not close.  And I also don't see what Haystack has to do with the comparison since it was long gone before the deal.

Also,  95% of what I've been reading has been debate, not "whining".  If you don't agree, fine.  The, "they're there to run a business, not a charity" comment is overly simplistic.  Who ever said they have to run a charity?  Business decisions are based on spending as well as saving money.  All I and some others are saying is that their business decisions look pretty poor to date.  Understanding that crystal balls are very often wrong, I'm still betting they fail over the long term.


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

Vinny said:


> When comparing investment plans on a size basis it's not close.



Agreed. Based on skiable terrain, Powdr would have to be investing $10-$12M to be comparable to Peak's $7M.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Jim, you ignorant slut!  (sorry been dying to use that line) Yes, borrowing is what got ASC in trouble. But was it borrowing to improve the mountain, or borrowing to pay off losses from other operations that they never should have been in? Not sure what is fact and what is fiction, but the common belief is that Killlington was always a money maker for them. The only issue is that money was siphoned off to other operations and Killington and even more so Pico were neglected. I believe to once again get Killlinton to where it was in terms of profitability, money needs to be spent and needs to be spent now in order to improve operations and make the mountain more desireable to the consumer. There is just far too much competition in the area. I myself love Killington, but with what I'm seeing, I may give it one more year and if in that time I don't see some improvements I moving on. Plenty of others are feeling the same.
> 
> I love Sugarbush(hey Win  ) the only thing that has kept me from going there is the drive. Guess what, the drive due to poor operations, is suddenly not looking bad. Will most definetly be checking out Whiteface/Gore this year, same distance for me as K. . Going elsewhere may cost me more, but it's not only about the expense, it's also about the product. Bottom line, I'm not the only one feeling this way, others will be moving on as well if they see a shortened season, less choices and higher prices. Why put up with it if there is better down the road? Powdr is giving themselves X number of years to invest and improve, but will the public do the same? Which will be more expensive, putting in the investment now, or the potential loss over the years?



Andy, you're pretty rational. I take it back...everyone who is bitching about what is going on is fairly rational. Don't think I don't understand the issues. I do completely. All I'm doing is playing the part of the new owner like one or 2 other brave souls are doing. I hope POWDR is watching...there is priceless demographic and customer service info here they need to address. 

I have always told folks to vote with their dollars. If you don't like what's happening, go elsewhere. If it happened at Hunter, I would view it as a situation like you are in...give it a year to see what plays out, then move on if I'm unhappy. It's my (your) choice. And I would look at it as a positive, an opportunity to move on and ski elsewhere. Yes, I might have to drive further or consider owning a ski home. I can make it happen if I have the motivation.

But I'm still baffled by the level of expectation of the new owners I see here. You all are expecting them to make up for the years of abuse you got from ASC, and in spades. Cheap passes, long season (which has not really been in play for at least 5 years), on hill improvements, more snowmaking. That I do not think is rational.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

Greg said:


> Agreed. Based on skiable terrain, Powdr would have to be investing $10-$12M to be comparable to Peak's $7M.



Compared to ASC's $0 (well, they'd claim a few million for painting a lodge, adding a daycare program, and moving a few snowmaking pipes), $3m is pretty significant.  Often, when a business in trouble is acquired, there is a spending freeze - SP/Powdr has instead decided to pour in another 3% over their purchase price in their first season.

A new HS 6 Pack next year would make this whole investment argument a moot point, that's how trivial and shortsighted this is.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

JimG. said:


> All I'm doing is playing the part of the new owner



I find it pretty funny that I've been sticking up so much for Killington when it's just about my least favorite ski area in Vermont!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

MadPadraic said:


> If we stop complaining, then we are reduced to endless "who are your 5 favorite lift operators" polls. I'll take the complaining.




Please don't stop; it's the whole purpose of me giving you posts to scream at. I want to analyze what they are doing and give the opportunity for folks to vent. And I hope they see it too. 

I do understand what they are doing. They are making tough, unpopular choices. They have alienated alot of regulars/locals. They have resisted the easy PR windfalls. There must be a reason. There must be a plan.

If there isn't, they will fail. And they need to address you folks who love the place but who are utterly disgusted. 

I totally understand.


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> Compared to ASC's $0 (well, they'd claim a few million for painting a lodge, adding a daycare program, and moving a few snowmaking pipes), $3m is pretty significant.  Often, when a business in trouble is acquired, there is a spending freeze - SP/Powdr has instead decided to pour in another 3% over their purchase price in their first season.
> 
> A new HS 6 Pack next year would make this whole investment argument a moot point, that's how trivial and shortsighted this is.



Well, you brought it up. I'm not trying to diminish Powdr's investment into the mountain. I'm just pointing out that your comparison was not accurate.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> I find it pretty funny that I've been sticking up so much for Killington when it's just about my least favorite ski area in Vermont!



Went there once last season, April 29. 

Not my favorite place to ski, never has been.

But I believe it is a benchmark for alot of ski area operations in the east. Has any other ski area been talked about as much this off season (or any other off season)?

As such, what happens is important to the region. And folks need to be able to direct their ire at specific points of discussion I (and apparently you) are more than willing to supply. 

I'm fascinated by the very deep seated feelings that have been exposed. The new owners have alot of issues to address.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

I left out the base facilities portion of it which skews it a bit, but still 3m vs 4m isn't that big a difference...though KMart is bigger than Mt. Snow, they are both in a destination resort league.


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> I left out the base facilities portion of it which skews it a bit, but still 3m vs 4m isn't that big a difference...though KMart is bigger than Mt. Snow, they are both in a destination resort league.



The $3M is for *both *Killington and Pico so I think it's fair to include Attitash with Mount Snow to come up with $7M and a better comparison.

And feel free to write me a check for $1M if you don't think that's a significant number.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

Greg said:


> The $3M is for *both *Killington and Pico so I think it's fair to include Attitash with Mount Snow to come up with $7M and a better comparison.
> 
> And feel free to write me a check for $1M if you don't think that's a significant number.



I'll gladly write you a check for $1m if the critics in here write me a check for $3m, since its not a significant number


----------



## Greg (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> I'll gladly write you a check for $1m if the critics in here write me a check for $3m, since its not a significant number



Touché. But wouldn't you rather have $7M?


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

Greg said:


> Touché. But wouldn't you rather have $7M?



Yes, especially for two separate destination resorts instead of one and its ugly step child


----------



## snowman (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> SP/Powdr could have very easily shut down Pico except for weekends and holidays, jacked up the day price at K-Mart to $85 and the entry level season pass to $1000, and not put a dime back into each mountain - and still made a profit.  They didn't.  They put an INITIAL investment of 3.5 million into the area and get tarred and feathered, while Peak puts in 2.5 million into Mt. Snow (Haystack CLOSED) and gets praised.



Just to set the record stright, Peak didn't close Haystack and don't even own it!




threecy said:


> So much whining.  Everyone here had an opportunity to buy Killington and run it the 'right' way.  Only SP/Powdr were able to put up an ample amount of money to do so.  At the end of the day, they own the area/rights.  Stop complaining and either go ski or go ski elsewhere.  They're there to run a business, not a charity



I already covered this more bluntly with STOP YOUR BITCHING! :beer:

Could someone direct me to the beating a dead horse smilie?? This thread needed it back around page 9! :razz:


----------



## nycskier (Jul 13, 2007)

I think long term there are a lot of improvements that can be made to Killington. I know we talked about the Interconnect and maybe putting lights on Pico.

Also replacing Snowdon with a HSQ and maybe even putting in a lift that goes all the way to the top of Ramshead. 

Even little things like improving the quality of food in the lodge, increasing snow making and keeping and creating special events and concerts at Killington.

There is a lot that can be done to make the place better. So far we haven't heard anything from Powdr about what they plan to do other than what they plan to cut.

I know it is early, but they are asking us to give them money early for a season pass. Would be nice to know what improvements they plan to make.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

nycskier said:


> I know it is early, but they are asking us to give them money early for a season pass. Would be nice to know what improvements they plan to make.



I'd say it's fair to assume they'll not be doing anything noticable this season.  If I were considering a season pass there, that's the assumption I'd make.  Same ski area, shorter season.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2007)

snowman said:


> Just to set the record stright, Peak didn't close Haystack and don't even own it!



Yep, but just need to point out that Haystack is a smaller version of Pico - it could be a lot worse than losing two days a week when no one's around.


----------



## thebigo (Jul 13, 2007)

> I think long term there are a lot of improvements that can be made to Killington. I know we talked about the Interconnect and maybe putting lights on Pico.
> 
> Also replacing Snowdon with a HSQ and maybe even putting in a lift that goes all the way to the top of Ramshead.
> 
> ...



Killington needs a bevy of improvements but I would put a high speed lift in place of skye quad at the top of the list. The point you make is valid. POWDR has increased the price without giving any indication that they will improve the product. For those of us without existing financial ties to the place it does not make sense to purchase a $1000 pass. Rather than a $1000 pass for me and the old lady we can purchase two granite passes and one nh resident cannon pass. That is a perfect combination for us. 

The larger question is real estate. POWDR/SP need to sell real estate to have any chance of recovering their investment. It appears from the outside that they do not realize that they have to cater to skiers to sell real estate. We are in the market for a ski condo but decided to wait one more year to see how everything shakes out. Last year at this time we were considering killington but it is far less appealing now. If Boyne offers a reciprocal pass with the loaf and discounts at brighton and big sky, than sunday river becomes far more appealing. 

I agree much of this is knee-jerk but at the same time a vacation home is a major investment for most people. Second most expensive thing you'll buy in your life. You have to feel good about it when making your decision and POWDR has not left any room to feel good about Killington.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

thebigo said:


> For those of us without existing financial ties to the place it does not make sense to purchase a $1000 pass. Rather than a $1000 pass for me and the old lady we can purchase two granite passes and one nh resident cannon pass. That is a perfect combination for us.
> 
> I agree much of this is knee-jerk but at the same time a vacation home is a major investment for most people. Second most expensive thing you'll buy in your life. You have to feel good about it when making your decision and POWDR has not left any room to feel good about Killington.



Sounds like you would be better off with the NH passes anyway. Why even consider Killington?

A vacation home is a volatile investment and should be carefully considered. It should not be purchased as an investment per se but rather as a second home. Buying it to make money off of it is stressful. Again, if NH is perfect for you and your family, why look at K?

You do have to feel good about the purchase. It's funny, 4 months ago everyone was screaming for ASC's head and most folks would have been glad to have anyone other than ASC running Killington. POWDR has owned it for 2 months and people are more down on them than ASC and ASC and their part in this tragedy have been totally forgotten. 

And POWDR hasn't even owned it long enough to see a snowflake fly.


----------



## thebigo (Jul 13, 2007)

We have had passes at killington for five years now. We have friends in the area that we turned into skiers. We have other sets of friends that bought passes up there over the last few years. We have skiied over 150 days there over that time period. In other words we have a connection to the place. 

With that said the nh passes make much more sense this year. Crotched at a 45 minute drive is a great value, we can rely on both Crotched and Attitash to make snow when times are lean and when we do get snow Cannon is as good as anyplace.

I used the term investment reffering to both time and resources not expectations of a monetary return. The point was that SP/POWDR needs to sell real estate to survive and they seem to forget that the skiers are the same people purchasing the real estate.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 13, 2007)

JimG. said:


> It's funny, 4 months ago everyone was screaming for ASC's head and most folks would have been glad to have anyone other than ASC running Killington. POWDR has owned it for 2 months and people are more down on them than ASC and ASC and their part in this tragedy have been totally forgotten.
> 
> And POWDR hasn't even owned it long enough to see a snowflake fly.



Aw, c'mon Jim, give yourself some credit, you haven't let anyone forget about ASC's part in all of this...or anything bad for that matter...they're probably the ones behind global warming too!


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Aw, c'mon Jim, give yourself some credit, you haven't let anyone forget about ASC's part in all of this...or anything bad for that matter...they're probably the ones behind global warming too!



It's nice to be appreciated and well understood.

POWDR is starting out behind the 8 ball and ASC is to blame for that.

Unfortunately, they've done nothing yet to polish their image and if anything have scratched on every shot so far.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Jul 13, 2007)

JimG. said:


> POWDR is starting out behind the 8 ball and ASC is to blame for that.



Sorry, but according to some of your own logic regarding ownership of property at Pico, Powdr can't blame ASC for anything...they bought the mtn on their own initiative, ASC didn't force them to buy it, didn't pretend there were all sorts of new lodges and fantastic improvements all over the place...they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into right from the start...they have no one to blame but themselves...that may even be a quote from one of your earlier posts.  :smile:  Do I get to say caveat emptor again?  ;-)


----------



## JimG. (Jul 13, 2007)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> Sorry, but according to some of your own logic regarding ownership of property at Pico, Powdr can't blame ASC for anything...they bought the mtn on their own initiative, ASC didn't force them to buy it, didn't pretend there were all sorts of new lodges and fantastic improvements all over the place...they knew exactly what they were getting themselves into right from the start...they have no one to blame but themselves...that may even be a quote from one of your earlier posts.  :smile:  Do I get to say caveat emptor again?  ;-)



No!

Fell right into my trap. You're right...nobody forced POWDR to buy anything. They bought it with eyes wide open. With all of its' flaws and problems. And they certainly must know about the image issues the resort had, the poor business decisions ASC made, the consequences of those decisions, and the negative PR their initial announcements have caused. Unless you think they are just plain stupid and then you can just kiss K goodbye right now.

So they must have a plan. There will be positive announcements in the future. Maybe you and others here won't like that plan and will go elsewhere, but then other skiers will come and take your place. There has to be a marketing plan beyond the initial negativity. I'd like to see that play out before I kill them just because it's fashionable to do so today.

In the end, we still don't really have a clue.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 13, 2007)

JimG. said:


> So they must have a plan.



I have my doubts....based on how most of their decisions so far seem to be based solely on cost. (Season length, laid-off employees...)



> I'd like to see that play out before I kill them just because it's fashionable to do so today.



True, but...their current decisions have the potential to cause major damage...and by the time those things play out, more permanent damage may be done to K and especially Pico.




> There will be positive announcements in the future.



That'd be nice....




> In the end, we still don't really have a clue.



I'd say we have a few clues, and so far, they aren't pointing toward a great future.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 13, 2007)

threecy said:


> \
> A new HS 6 Pack next year would make this whole investment argument a moot point, that's how trivial and shortsighted this is.



I'd rather see improvements than an HS 6 Pack.


----------



## threecy (Jul 14, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> I have my doubts



You don't spend $85 million without a business plan (unless of course you're government).

They just need a string of a few positive announcements - then most of this will be swept under the rug in the minds of most of their skiers.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 14, 2007)

threecy said:


> You don't spend $85 million without a business plan (unless of course you're government).
> 
> They just need a string of a few positive announcements - then most of this will be swept under the rug in the minds of most of their skiers.


 
Normally you may be correct, but we are forgetting one very important thing here, SP. We don't know how the partnership between SP and Powdr is setup. Initial reports stated that SP spent $85 million, not Powdr. If that's the case, SP(a real estate company), will be calling the shots. Their biggest interest will be selling condos and townhouses not the mountain. The mountain is only important to them with regards to selling lodging. So, if they are the major investors, I have to imagine that all they care about is short term investing, investing to sell condos.


----------



## Vinny (Jul 14, 2007)

threecy said:


> You don't spend $85 million without a business plan (unless of course you're government).
> .



Just because people are able to invest big $$'s doesn't always mean that they make the right decisions.  "A plan", certainly.  "A plan that will work", maybe.


----------



## SKIVT2 (Jul 14, 2007)

threecy said:


> Yes, especially for two separate destination resorts instead of one and its ugly step child



Threecy

How many days have you spent at PICO?  I have spent 15-20 days there each year for the past 4 years.  In many ways you apparently will never understand it is a better mountain that killington.  I am offended by your reference to PICO as an ugly stepchild.  I don't think you know what you are talking about.

ASC completely ignored the place.  They rarely ran the best expert lift or attempted to build a base on the best expert terrain.  Despite the abuse of ASC, Pico remained an awesome place to ski.  It's lack of crowds was more a factor of ASC's lack of attention and the ignorance of the general ski population due to the lack of marketing.  I have no doubt the place is viable as a stand alone mountain if managed correctly.  In fact, the atmosphere there has an element of the family friendly local cool of Mad River Glen.  It is THE place that the Rutland local population considers it's "home" mountain...  NOT killington.  It's the place kids from the area learn to ski.  It is a telemark mecca.  

As for realestate prices there....the condos have doubled or tripled in the 6-7 years prior to the recent downturn.  So I don't think anyone could argue that Pico realestate owners should have seen the writing on the wall.  In fact, Pico condos have recently been priced higher for comparible size than most similar Killington condos due to the superior ski/ski out access offered by these units.

The travesty of the 5 day schedule is not the decision in isoloation.  It's the idea that it communicates Powdr's view of the place.  Pico is at a crossroads.  It could be improved and marketed as a niche mountain. In my opinion there is a place for this in the market.  People who hate Okemo, Mt. Snow, Killington and other very commercial ventures appreciate the "camp" atmosphere of a Mad River. In sure the same type of skiers attracted to Mad River can appreciate Pico if they become aware of it.  The single base area and lower HSQ with all intermediate/beginner terrain are perfect for families, learners, and potentially even night skiing.  It is the place I have identified as my best bet for learning to snowboard this year.  

I have skied all of the major 16 mountains in VT many times and I think I have a good idea of what each mountain offers.  Pico is unique.  It is a skiers mountain.  The problem is that maximizing profits per dollar invested will never lead to appropriate management of this type of place just as it would not suit Mad River.  Perhaps it needs to be run as a co-op or a non-profit.  Who knows??

Powdr has shown with it's decisions that it is big business looking to max profits with no desire to be a steward of the land for the purpose of creating a great skiing experience.  This is a short term mentality that many of us recognize as a bad sign for Pico.  It is probably ultimately bad for the industry from a consumers perspective.

If you don't believe me read this:

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31312&highlight=powdr uke:


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 14, 2007)

Yawn... this company came in with gun's blarin'. If they think they can use their western business mentality out here they have another thing coming. We don't get 400 inches of snow a year, you have to earn your customers. They have burned so many bridges and pissed off so many people its almost funny.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 14, 2007)

Newpylong said:


> Yawn... this company came in with gun's blarin'. If they think they can use their western business mentality out here they have another thing coming. We don't get 400 inches of snow a year, you have to earn your customers. They have burned so many bridges and pissed off so many people its almost funny.



When you have to start trying to figure out who you haven't pissed off....you know you have a problem.

Only good news I've been able to get out of them so far is that Valley Plunge and some of the other overgrown trails are going to be cleared/trimmed. (Although, they said no to clearing The Judge, and Thunderball...)


----------



## threecy (Jul 14, 2007)

SKIVT2 said:


> I am offended by your reference to PICO as an ugly stepchild.  I don't think you know what you are talking about.



I hope you're not sincere in saying you're offended with my comments about a ski area.  I don't see how you can disagree that Pico is treated like the ugly stepchild.

In my opinion, Pico has a lot more character than Killington.  I haven't skied it much (but nonetheless I have, and I've hiked all over it), but I know enough about the terrain and facilities to make an informed judgement on it.

For the record, Killington is one of my least favorite ski areas to ski.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 14, 2007)

Its too bad because Pico is a better mountain many others in the East and its always taken the backseat to its bigger neighbor. I think the only savior is going to be the interconnect. Unfortunately, with that comes other problems. But, I think that's the only way its going to get the attention it deserves.

Miller, who told you they are going to chop that crap off of Valley Plunge? I will believe it when I see it! But good to hear anyway....


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 14, 2007)

Newpylong said:


> Miller, who told you they are going to chop that crap off of Valley Plunge? I will believe it when I see it!



I asked Spin in a PM.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 14, 2007)

Unless you own rental property there, I don't see that very many people are impacted by Pico running on a 5 day per week schedule.  Their projected opening and closing dates align with how it was run when ASC owned the place.  

The biggest impact is to Pico-only season pass holders.  During ASC ownership, they could use their passes at Killington when Pico was closed.  When Killington offered a 6+ month season, that was a very good deal.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 14, 2007)

Geoff said:


> The biggest impact is to Pico-only season pass holders.  During ASC ownership, they could use their passes at Killington when Pico was closed.  When Killington offered a 6+ month season, that was a very good deal.



Can they still use their passes when Pico is closed? (Including those days?)


----------



## andyzee (Jul 14, 2007)

Newpylong said:


> Yawn... this company came in with gun's blarin'. If they think they can use their western business mentality out here they have another thing coming. We don't get 400 inches of snow a year, you have to earn your customers. They have burned so many bridges and pissed off so many people its almost funny.


 
Yeah, I was thinking just the other day how they're out of the west and wondering what they know about operating in the east. My concern; what do they know about snowmaking? They're more used to Mother Nature taking care of that for them.:roll:


----------



## SKIVT2 (Jul 15, 2007)

threecy said:


> I hope you're not sincere in saying you're offended with my comments about a ski area.  I don't see how you can disagree that Pico is treated like the ugly stepchild.
> 
> In my opinion, Pico has a lot more character than Killington.  I haven't skied it much (but nonetheless I have, and I've hiked all over it), but I know enough about the terrain and facilities to make an informed judgement on it.
> 
> For the record, Killington is one of my least favorite ski areas to ski.



Sorry.  I was sincere because I thought you meant that you felt it is an ugly step child rather than just being treated like one.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2007)

SKIVT2 said:


> Sorry.  I was sincere because I thought you meant that you felt it is an ugly step child rather than just being treated like one.



It is...it doesn't have much going for it.  Clean everything up and you have a nice ski area again.


----------



## SKIVT2 (Jul 15, 2007)

threecy said:


> It is...it doesn't have much going for it.  Clean everything up and you have a nice ski area again.



WHATEVER!?!?!?!!   :roll:  Now you are just just being a troll.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2007)

SKIVT2 said:


> WHATEVER!?!?!?!!   :roll:  Now you are just just being a troll.



I don't know how you can call it trolling...take Pico, give it independent ownership, and place it maybe 10-15 miles further away from Killington, and you have a whole different ballgame.


----------



## SnowRider (Jul 15, 2007)

I can only imagine how awsome the powder would be if a storm rolled in and snowed monday to wendsday. On thursday can you say bottomless deep?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 16, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> I have my doubts....based on how most of their decisions so far seem to be based solely on cost. (Season length, laid-off employees...)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's a prevailing attitude here they're out of touch with their market ("stupid" in business). 

It's clear they're out of touch with the market who is posting here. Assuming this is their chosen market, maybe they are "stupid".

Is everyone here sure we are their market? Cause you have to admit they don't act like they care about skiers like us.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 16, 2007)

$399 for a no blackout pass is a steal.  Even with these strings attached.  Ms. TB said go for it.  ASSUMING that they offer a good product for us on the open days, which are all when she wants to ski (she does not have ANY interest in going on T-W), then we will be happy.  

It is a compromise in my book.  Assuming we don't get burned, I am not too upset.  

I do sympathize for the members of the local high school racing teams that use the mountain midweek, as well as members of the Pico Ski Club.  I HOPE that they were able to be in on the discussion regarding this decision.  Racing is a big thing at Pico...some big meets there and to lose them would be a shame.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 16, 2007)

JimG. said:


> It's clear they're out of touch with the market who is posting here. Assuming this is their chosen market, maybe they are "stupid".



Obviously, we (for the most part), don't seem to be the market they want to cater to, but Killington doesn't have what it takes to draw the high-end skiers in, and isn't going to unless they actually invest some money into it.

Do I think they're stupid? No, but..I do think that they haven't operated in the East before, and haven't realized yet that things work a lot differently here than out West.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 16, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> Do I think they're stupid? No, but..I do think that they haven't operated in the East before, and haven't realized yet that things work a lot differently here than out West.



Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes.


----------



## threecy (Jul 16, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes.



I think very few people, whether from the west or east, have figured out how to run a ski area successfully out here.


----------



## Zand (Jul 16, 2007)

threecy said:


> I think very few people, whether from the west or east, have figured out how to run a ski area successfully out here.



Sugarbush's owners have. Or more areas should try to go like MRG and say "who needs owners?"


----------



## nycskier (Jul 17, 2007)

threecy said:


> I think very few people, whether from the west or east, have figured out how to run a ski area successfully out here.



The Muellers seem to have figured it out. They have done a pretty good job with Okemo.


----------



## threecy (Jul 17, 2007)

Of all of the names listed above in response to my post, very few of them are showing a net profit yet.  Okemo is certainly a success story, however.  They definitely fall into the list of the very few.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 17, 2007)

threecy said:


> Of all of the names listed above in response to my post, very few of them are showing a net profit yet.  Okemo is certainly a success story, however.  They definitely fall into the list of the very few.


How can you make that statement? 
The names listed are Wildcat, which is privately owned and does not makes its financial statements available.
Peaks Resorts, which is privately owned and does not makes its financial statements available.
Sugarbush, which is privately owned and does not make its financial statements available.
Okemo, which you referred to as a success story, pushed the extended season HARD at Sunapee this year.

Perhaps you have access to data that the rest of us don't, but it seems like speculation to say that Wildcat, Peaks, and Sugarbush are losers.

Edit: Oh yeah, MRG, but they are a bit atypical in their operating philosophy.


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

I won't go into details, but just do some simple math based upon the purchase prices/investments made into some of those areas...they aren't cracking a net profit yet.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 18, 2007)

FWIW Wildcat is for sale.  Has been for a while.  The family wants to get out of the biz...probably because it is tough to make money.  

Triple Peaks:  I've heard that they are making a killing at Sunapee.  Okemo is doing well. 

Peaks Resorts:  probably doing well....they are not taking the draconian actions that ASC did.  The real test has yet to come....running Snow and Attitash are different than their typical "day resort" business plan.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

Geoff said:


> Apples & oranges.  You are mixing condo development with infrastructure development.



I wade into this abortion at my peril but....


1) Most of the investment at Stowe was in condos, but a big piece is also the new snowmaking system at Spruce, the new quads at Spruce, the interconnect lift, the impending new Mansfield lodge, and some other new buildings and lifts on the way.

2) SB was definitely focused on Clay Brook, but they also bought themselves a new lodge and base area restaurant.

3) Jackson Gore, while driven by real-estate (what isn't?), added a huge amount of new terrain to Okemo - lifts, trails, lodges, etc..

What these jokers are doing makes no sense.  As someone mentioned, they just sold Alpine Meadows, so they have some cash.  More importantly, the capital they needed to finance the deferred maintenance at K-Mart/Pico over the last 10-15 years should have been factored into their purchase price.  That's how how businesses are valued - anyone that tells you different hasn't run anything more complex than a lemonade stand.  The $3MM they are dumping into the place this year is truly chump change for a resort its size with 5 separate base areas and lots of old snowmaking and lift infrastructure spread out over an 11 mile long ridge.  The $2.5MM at Mt. Snow buys you a lot more relative to the size of the place, and is anyway clearly a down payment on future investments.

There's no doubt that POWDR had to take drastic actions to stop the rot at K/Pico.  The A41 pass pricing was stupid and unsustainable.  But to accompany those increases with a drastically reduced product offering (in terms of days open at the combined entity) w/o a commensurate increase in the value proposition somewhere else is plain stoooopid.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> The real test has yet to come....running Snow and Attitash are different than their typical "day resort" business plan.



Yes!

Because all the nice deals, improvements, and promises won't mean squat if they do a poor job of managing operations.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> But to accompany those increases with a drastically reduced product offering (in terms of days open at the combined entity) w/o a commensurate increase in the value proposition somewhere else is plain stoooopid.



Unless they excell on the operations end when the snow flies. If that is the case, then it won't look so stoooopid.


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Peaks Resorts:  probably doing well....they are not taking the draconian actions that ASC did.  The real test has yet to come....running Snow and Attitash are different than their typical "day resort" business plan.



When you consider they've dumped nearly $100 million into New England so far (Snow/Attitash/Crotched all in the past few years), they have a long way to go to start making a return on such a large sum of money.


----------



## thebigo (Jul 18, 2007)

When evaluating the potential success of larger ski conglomerates investing in new england it is important to consider the new ski areas as part of their total holdings rather than individual operations.

The ski industry is extremely volatile, geographically diversified operations are the best way to combat the climatological ebb and flow of the industry. In the last year alone three major western operators have added new england operations. 

It could be argued that Boyne has the best track record of any of the companies that operate multiple resorts and they are also the most diversified. They now have ski areas in the midwest, new england, utah, montana, pacific-northwest and Canada. They are in every major ski market excluding Colorado and Tahoe. They also operate a tourist charilift in the south and I believe they have some other operation in florida, somebody else could confirm this. Point is they have positioned themselves to withstand the annual weather fluctuations and have a 50 year history to show for it.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

thebigo said:


> When evaluating the potential success of larger ski conglomerates investing in new england it is important to consider the new ski areas as part of their total holdings rather than individual operations.
> 
> The ski industry is extremely volatile, geographically diversified operations are the best way to combat the climatological ebb and flow of the industry. In the last year alone three major western operators have added new england operations.
> 
> It could be argued that Boyne has the best track record of any of the companies that operate multiple resorts and they are also the most diversified. They now have ski areas in the midwest, new england, utah, montana, pacific-northwest and Canada. They are in every major ski market excluding Colorado and Tahoe. They also operate a tourist charilift in the south and I believe they have some other operation in florida, somebody else could confirm this. Point is they have positioned themselves to withstand the annual weather fluctuations and have a 50 year history to show for it.



Great post!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 18, 2007)

thebigo said:


> When evaluating the potential success of larger ski conglomerates investing in new england it is important to consider the new ski areas as part of their total holdings rather than individual operations.
> 
> The ski industry is extremely volatile, geographically diversified operations are the best way to combat the climatological ebb and flow of the industry. In the last year alone three major western operators have added new england operations.
> 
> It could be argued that Boyne has the best track record of any of the companies that operate multiple resorts and they are also the most diversified. They now have ski areas in the midwest, new england, utah, montana, pacific-northwest and Canada. They are in every major ski market excluding Colorado and Tahoe. They also operate a tourist charilift in the south and I believe they have some other operation in florida, somebody else could confirm this. Point is they have positioned themselves to withstand the annual weather fluctuations and have a 50 year history to show for it.



What are the three companies that you are thinking of?  

I count Boyne and Powdr.  Intrawest IIRC is gone...


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> What are the three companies that you are thinking of?
> 
> I count Boyne and Powdr.  Intrawest IIRC is gone...



Peak?


----------



## Greg (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> Peak?



:lol: Trailboss asleep at the wheel...


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> I won't go into details, but just do some simple math based upon the purchase prices/investments made into some of those areas...they aren't cracking a net profit yet.



I think this is the wrong way to approach the analysis.  You can't factor in the purchase price of the resort to determine profitability.  That's a capital asset that can later be sold (hopefully at a higher price than what you paid for it) to recoup your investment.  If the operator runs an efficient ski area business and generates operating profits, that should be the goal.  Then you have funds to invest in improving the mountain/long-term maintenance/capital improvements.  

No ski area operator can expect to recoup the purchase price of the resort via operating profits unless the timeframe is 20-30 years.  The correct concept should be return on investment (ROI).  For an investment of $80 million to acquire the property plus capital improvements, how much income does the resort generate on an annual basis?  That's your ROI.

I agree with you that if you include purchase price, then no one is making a "net profit" unless they acquired the resort 40 years ago for $100,000.  But that can't be a realistic goal of operators who acquired their resorts in the last 10 years or so.  I have to believe that the successful operators (Okemo, Sugarbush, etc) are generating annual operating profits.  Otherwise, they will be on NELSAP real soon.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Unless they excell on the operations end when the snow flies. If that is the case, then it won't look so stoooopid.



They can excell all they want - if a significant portion of their existing and potential customer base stays away due to very public and somewhat egregious marketing errors, there will be no one there to see how wonderful they are.   What draws people to ski at a particular area, other than the natural assets of a place (snowfall, terrain, location, etc..) is the experience they expect to pay for.  Customer service (including guest services, food, ski school, etc..), which is something Peaks can address immediately, is just one component of that equation.   People care about the quality of the snow surface (how much snow making and grooming), the quality of the lifts (better to be fast and efficient where needed), and ideally some opportunities for new terrain.  There is zero prospect of anything new on the last three fronts.  Peaks can improve on the customer service end, but it's even difficult to do that w/o a major commitment of capital and/or expense dollars.  

I'm not saying they are on the road to ruin or anything, but if you're defending their performance in the first few months of owning K, you don't have much fo a leg to stand on.  I think they are going to have a historically bad season this winter.  It's going to take a while to build back up the somewhat tattered brand they acquired (and subsequently devalued even more).


----------



## thebigo (Jul 18, 2007)

> They can excell all they want - if a significant portion of their existing and potential customer base stays away due to very public and somewhat egregious marketing errors, there will be no one there to see how wonderful they are. What draws people to ski at a particular area, other than the natural assets of a place (snowfall, terrain, location, etc..) is the experience they expect to pay for. Customer service (including guest services, food, ski school, etc..), which is something Peaks can address immediately, is just one component of that equation. People care about the quality of the snow surface (how much snow making and grooming), the quality of the lifts (better to be fast and efficient where needed), and ideally some opportunities for new terrain. There is zero prospect of anything new on the last three fronts. Peaks can improve on the customer service end, but it's even difficult to do that w/o a major commitment of capital and/or expense dollars.
> 
> I'm not saying they are on the road to ruin or anything, but if you're defending their performance in the first few months of owning K, you don't have much fo a leg to stand on. I think they are going to have a historically bad season this winter. It's going to take a while to build back up the somewhat tattered brand they acquired (and subsequently devalued even more).



Just to clarify I think you are refering to POWRD rather than Peaks. .


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> Peak?



Peaks Resort is not a "western" company by any means.  Midwestern, yes, but they don't own anything in the west per se.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> They can excell all they want - if a significant portion of their existing and potential customer base stays away due to very public and somewhat egregious marketing errors, there will be no one there to see how wonderful they are.   What draws people to ski at a particular area, other than the natural assets of a place (snowfall, terrain, location, etc..) is the experience they expect to pay for.  Customer service (including guest services, food, ski school, etc..), which is something Peaks can address immediately, is just one component of that equation.   People care about the quality of the snow surface (how much snow making and grooming), the quality of the lifts (better to be fast and efficient where needed), and ideally some opportunities for new terrain.  There is zero prospect of anything new on the last three fronts.  Peaks can improve on the customer service end, but it's even difficult to do that w/o a major commitment of capital and/or expense dollars.
> 
> I'm not saying they are on the road to ruin or anything, but if you're defending their performance in the first few months of owning K, you don't have much fo a leg to stand on.  I think they are going to have a historically bad season this winter.  It's going to take a while to build back up the somewhat tattered brand they acquired (and subsequently devalued even more).



I understand what you're saying; I'm not defending anything, I'm only trying to figure out what their plan is. I agree their initial set of decisions have not been current K customer friendly. I say current because I can't believe that current K customers are their target market. Not with the way things have developed so far.

But I won't make any judgements on what will ultimately happen until I personally experience the place during this coming winter. You've predicted an historically bad season for them and I just don't see what you base that on, other than unpopular decisions made in the past 2 months. Are you telling me that if K has a blowout natural snow year of over 300 inches that the place will be empty? I think not.

All I'm saying is I'll wait until the snow flies to make that determination.


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> I think this is the wrong way to approach the analysis.  You can't factor in the purchase price of the resort to determine profitability.



This is what, in part, killed ASC.  It's not like Peak, for instance, just had $75M in bundled cash sitting around.  It is borrowed - whether it be from a bank or another person/company.  Not only do you need an operational profit, but you also need to be making money above and beyond the amount of money you've borrowed.  Sure, property appreciates - that's icing on the cake...but of that $75m, there's a lot tied in that depreciates.  The lenders will likely want to see a shorter term return on investment and not wait 20 years to cash out and see a potential (if a ski area goes to NELSAP, odds are its property value plummets) profit alone.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I understand what you're saying; I'm not defending anything, I'm only trying to figure out what their plan is. I agree their initial set of decisions have not been current K customer friendly. I say current because I can't believe that current K customers are their target market. Not with the way things have developed so far.
> 
> But I won't make any judgements on what will ultimately happen until I personally experience the place during this coming winter. You've predicted an historically bad season for them and I just don't see what you base that on, other than unpopular decisions made in the past 2 months. Are you telling me that if K has a blowout natural snow year of over 300 inches that the place will be empty? I think not.
> 
> All I'm saying is I'll wait until the snow flies to make that determination.



I stand by my statement that K will have an historically bad season this year in terms of skier visits.  Now if the state of VT gets a bumper snow year (jah make it so!), there may not be much if a decrease, if any, but they will certainly lose market share either way.  That would still be "historically bad" if skier visists statewide go up 10% and they are flat.

But if you're in this game b/c you are betting on the weather, you're in the wrong game.  I don't need to tell anyone on this board that New England weather can be unpredictable in the next 15 minutes, let alone a year out.  The only thing you can count on to interest people year after year is if you have something new to show them and a consistently superior product.  You can deliver neither if you refuse to invest capital.

They are driving away many of their core skiers - that much is clear.  They want to replace them with the types of skiers who may be interested in buying a condo in the future base village.  OK - but what have they done to entice those people?  Is there a renewed commitment to superior snow surfaces stemming from a large investment in snowmaking and grooming?  Nope.  Is there some sort of material upgrade to or expension of the main base lodges to wow these people?  Nope.  Are there any new lifts to ease the congestion spots and enable newcomers to more easily get around this large mountain complex?  Nope.  Is there any new terrain on the horizon?  Not in the next ten years.

There IS a shortened season and fewer days you can ski at Pico, so that's change worth noting.

Where's the beef?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> They are driving away many of their core skiers - that much is clear.  They want to replace them with the types of skiers who may be interested in buying a condo in the future base village.  OK - but what have they done to entice those people?  Is there a renewed commitment to superior snow surfaces stemming from a large investment in snowmaking and grooming?  Nope.  Is there some sort of material upgrade to or expension of the main base lodges to wow these people?  Nope.  Are there any new lifts to ease the congestion spots and enable newcomers to more easily get around this large mountain complex?  Nope.  Is there any new terrain on the horizon?  Not in the next ten years.



Those are the types of things that entice you and me, skiers who care about the skiing.

Are you sure the demographic they seem to be chasing cares about those specific things as much as we do? Or do they care more about property and amenities and stay perfectly happy with any old ski area in the winter? 


Wanna bet that the first ski area related upgrades will be to the lodges/parking and not the terrain or snowmaking?


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 18, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Those are the types of things that entice you and me, skiers who care about the skiing.
> 
> Are you sure the demographic they seem to be chasing cares about those specific things as much as we do? Or do they care more about property and amenities and stay perfectly happy with any old ski area in the winter?




I'd think that that demographic does care about many of the things Tin mentioned--snowmaking, grooming, lodges, and high speed lifts.  Perhaps more than the skiers on this board, who in large part favor natural snow, ungroomed trails, and don't care that much how nice the base lodge is.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 18, 2007)

I think that Powdr and SP Lands were betting on the "reputation" of Killington to be the selling point...aka resting on the laurels.  



Unfortunately ASC killed that one.


But to be brutally honest, I think that SP Lands is interested in sprucing up the place, adding a few amentities, and finding some fool to buy the place and cash out...because in essence SP Lands got burned by ASC and they just want their $$$ back.  This is AZ's theory...their recent actions certainly support this theory.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

kcyanks1 said:


> I'd think that that demographic does care about many of the things Tin mentioned--snowmaking, grooming, lodges, and high speed lifts.  Perhaps more than the skiers on this board, who in large part favor natural snow, ungroomed trails, and don't care that much how nice the base lodge is.



Now that they've announced a shorter season, and if their demographic just wants decent trails and snow to get around on, Killington could easily offer 100 trails with awesome snowmaking and grooming and not invest a dime in capital improvements. That demographic wouldn't know what to do with that many trials, but we would view it as a loss of 50% of the terrain. And there are plenty of high speed lifts and what not to service that reduced terrain.

So, they upgrade the lodges like I said, they've spent minimal dollars, and yet they can still give that less hardcore demographic exactly what they want. I mean, wouldn't this idea fit right into the business look POWDR has projected. Spend no money?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 18, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> I think that Powdr and SP Lands were betting on the "reputation" of Killington to be the selling point...aka resting on the laurels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If this is true, they were resting on laurels, then nothing I'm saying matters.

Like Tin already said, stoooopid.


----------



## madskier6 (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> This is what, in part, killed ASC.  It's not like Peak, for instance, just had $75M in bundled cash sitting around.  It is borrowed - whether it be from a bank or another person/company.  Not only do you need an operational profit, but you also need to be making money above and beyond the amount of money you've borrowed.  Sure, property appreciates - that's icing on the cake...but of that $75m, there's a lot tied in that depreciates.  The lenders will likely want to see a shorter term return on investment and not wait 20 years to cash out and see a potential (if a ski area goes to NELSAP, odds are its property value plummets) profit alone.



I agree to a point.  You can't have overwhelming amounts of debt with high interest costs & expect to survive for long.  That's what killed ASC: the high debt service requirements.  But that was caused by owning too many resorts, making too many expensive improvements too fast & the banks buying into the "aura" or "charisma" of Les Otten & the job he did early on at Sunday River.

Your earlier point, however, was that very few (if any) operators of Eastern resorts are making a profit.  To support this point, you said that one has to take into consideration the purchase price of the resort. 

My only point was that in order to be profitable (at least from an operational standpoint) you do not factor in the cost of the resort since that is a capital asset which has independent value on its own.  But I do agree that too much debt to acquire the resort will seal your fate & you will fail.  Presumably, any banks that loaned money to a new operator in 2007 will not allow them to borrow 100% of the purchase price & will have debt service payments that amortize the principal over 10 or 20 years so they don't wait until the resort is sold to be paid back their principal.


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

madskier6 said:


> My only point was that in order to be profitable (at least from an operational standpoint) you do not factor in the cost of the resort since that is a capital asset which has independent value on its own.  But I do agree that too much debt to acquire the resort will seal your fate & you will fail.  Presumably, any banks that loaned money to a new operator in 2007 will not allow them to borrow 100% of the purchase price & will have debt service payments that amortize the principal over 10 or 20 years so they don't wait until the resort is sold to be paid back their principal.



Again, that $75m is not just cash sitting in some back room - it's a very large sum borrow from either a bank, company, person, or combination of the three.  While yes, the lifts/land/facilities are assets, a certain return needs to be seen consistantly just to make that initial investment worthwhile - and $75m is a very large sum of money.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Those are the types of things that entice you and me, skiers who care about the skiing.
> 
> Are you sure the demographic they seem to be chasing cares about those specific things as much as we do? Or do they care more about property and amenities and stay perfectly happy with any old ski area in the winter?
> 
> ...



What property and amenities?  There are no new or improved lodges.  There is no village in the the near term.  Moreover, let's assume for a minute that the demographic that Powdr is chasing is no longer a reader of Skiing (or more likely Time) but is rather the reader of Ski magazine.  You know, the kind that consistently rate Holiday Valley as a top 5 resort in the East.  As evidenced by the survey results, those people care about nice lodges/food, snow surface quality, fast lifts, and non-skiing amenities/activities.

Powdr isn't investing in any of those things.  One could argue that much of the amenities piece would be funded by investments by local entrepreneurs, but Powdr has done a pretty thorough job pissing those people off.  

Also, you commented in another response that K could simply downsize their operation to 100 trails, make a ton of snow, and keep people happy.  Assuming you are continuing to use the same naming conventions as at present (i.e. upper/lower/middle/headwall etc..), that means no Pico for starters.  Can't shut down Rams head as that's the family area with a HSQ.  Snowdon has some of the best cruising and is right out the front door.  The Canyon and Skye Peak?  Also out the front door and the signature terrain at the resort.  Maybe close down South Ridge and Bear Mtn, so you can get all old school and work it 1982 stylee.   I guess it's possible, but it would be a long, painful trough before the trend line started moving in an upward direction.  Also, you are forgetting that K, more than most places, has a huge, old snowmaking infrastructure that is mostly underground.  They were an early and aggressive adopter of the technology, and as a result are left with an older physical plant.  You can scale back to 50 trails and the place will still need a lot of capital in the near future.  

I'm sure these guys will make a go of it somehow.  Lord knows they needed to go upmarket if they had any hope of selling those condos in the future village.  But their PR has been a complete disaster and when that's complemented by nothing material from an improvements perspective, that's a recipe for big trouble in the short term.


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

Give 'em a chance...it's like when a friend buys a used car then spends thousands pimping it out before they even have it for a week - doesn't usually end well!  They're probably curious to see how the area can operate ASC-free before they start pouring tens of millions of dollars into it.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> Give 'em a chance...it's like when a friend buys a used car then spends thousands pimping it out before they even have it for a week - doesn't usually end well!  They're probably curious to see how the area can operate ASC-free before they start pouring tens of millions of dollars into it.



Lousy analogy.  A used car isn't supposed to provide cash flows in exchange for what you paid.  If the business plan was 1) buy it 2) don't invest a dime 3) hope it snows 4) raise prices 5) get some new marketing guys, I'm glad I'm not an equity holder in Powdr.   Just changing the name on the stationary doesn't do you much good.  I certainly dont' give a hoot who owns the ski area, and I'm certain that the desired demographic neither knows nor cares.  

What exactly is Powdr doing to entice either loyal skiers or newcomers to spend their skiing dollar there this winter?  Does anyone have an answer for this question?


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 18, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> What exactly is Powdr doing to entice either loyal skiers or newcomers to spend their skiing dollar there this winter?  Does anyone have an answer for this question?



They plan to do close to nothing, Powdr doesn't like marketing.....no I'm not kidding.



Also, there is very little on the mountain they can close (that would be an idiotic move in my opinion anyway), because I believe they have some agreement with the Sunrise owners to operate that lift, and there is probably something like that for the buildings off of GE on SkyeShip Stage 1.

They want to lure in the rich people, yet are unwilling to spend the required money to do so, and in their attempts to take it upscale without spending money, they will alienate their former customers, and be left with no one.......I see a major failure for 08-09 without a change sometime this season (07-08 ).


----------



## threecy (Jul 18, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Lousy analogy.  A used car isn't supposed to provide cash flows in exchange for what you paid.  If the business plan was 1) buy it 2) don't invest a dime 3) hope it snows 4) raise prices 5) get some new marketing guys, I'm glad I'm not an equity holder in Powdr.   Just changing the name on the stationary doesn't do you much good.  I certainly dont' give a hoot who owns the ski area, and I'm certain that the desired demographic neither knows nor cares.
> 
> What exactly is Powdr doing to entice either loyal skiers or newcomers to spend their skiing dollar there this winter?  Does anyone have an answer for this question?



Lousy analogy?  One of the biggest problems with the ski industry is a lack of spending control.  It's not like the lifts are broken and the lodges are burned down.  It's quite likely that they're proceeding with caution - fix some of the up front problems (again, $3m), and see how it goes with different management before splurging.  Just like buying a used car (heck call it a new car if you want, but I think it's hard to call much of anything at Killington/Pico new) - don't dump big bucks into new rims, new paintjob, new engine, etc. until you see how it runs.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> Lousy analogy?  One of the biggest problems with the ski industry is a lack of spending control.  It's not like the lifts are broken and the lodges are burned down.  It's quite likely that they're proceeding with caution - fix some of the up front problems (again, $3m), and see how it goes with different management before splurging.  Just like buying a used car (heck call it a new car if you want, but I think it's hard to call much of anything at Killington/Pico new) - don't dump big bucks into new rims, new paintjob, new engine, etc. until you see how it runs.



Well, the some of the lifts, due to lack of paint/care, do look horrible, and if you can't keep the lift painted, I have my doubts that they've been kept up that well mechanically either.

Oh, and while the lodges may not be burned down....the summit lodge is missing a whole side after a storm last season.

The mountain needs more work now, than $3m is going to buy.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 18, 2007)

threecy said:


> Lousy analogy?  One of the biggest problems with the ski industry is a lack of spending control.  It's not like the lifts are broken and the lodges are burned down.  It's quite likely that they're proceeding with caution - fix some of the up front problems (again, $3m), and see how it goes with different management before splurging.  Just like buying a used car (heck call it a new car if you want, but I think it's hard to call much of anything at Killington/Pico new) - don't dump big bucks into new rims, new paintjob, new engine, etc. until you see how it runs.



Yes, lousy analogy.  What is the rate of return or payback period on a new set of rims or a paint job?  I guess one would derive more personal pleasure from their vehicle, but it's not going to start producing cash.  Dumping lots of money into a used car is just stupidity for any number of reasons, not least of which being that you can't do serious due diligence on the asset before you buy it.  

That's not the case with purchases of businesses like K-Mart.  If you know what you're doing there should be relatively few unknowns and little need to "see how it runs".  K-Mart was on the market for months.  Powdr should have had plenty of time to assess the capital needs of the business and come up with an operating plan.  Let me put it another way.  Why would you jeopardize your $80MM investment by being unwilling to invest in said investment to make it more attractive?  If you "want to see how it runs" or are otherwise hesitant to invest in your business in the first year you own it, then clearly it was a lousy decision for you to buy it in the first place.  

If Powdr is going to stick by its "eat what you kill" philosophy, K-Mart is on the cusp of many lousy years.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Again, that $75m is not just cash sitting in some back room - it's a very large sum borrow from either a bank, company, person, or combination of the three.  While yes, the lifts/land/facilities are assets, a certain return needs to be seen consistantly just to make that initial investment worthwhile - and $75m is a very large sum of money.



We really don't know how much of the purchase was financed or the needed terms. It is probably safe to say that a portion of that amount was borrowed. Its also safe to say that a number of firms believe that Eastern ski resort ownership can be profitable because four new ownership groups have entered the market this year. My point here is that unless you are looking at data that we aren't, there really is no way of knowing what sort of return privately held ski areas are making.

Back on topic: limiting Pico's days seems like incredibly bad PR. If it happened in isolation, it wouldn't be such a big deal. However, it comes on the heals of various other blunders and contributes to an overall anti-consumer trend.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Yes, lousy analogy.  What is the rate of return or payback period on a new set of rims or a paint job?  I guess one would derive more personal pleasure from their vehicle, but it's not going to start producing cash.  Dumping lots of money into a used car is just stupidity for any number of reasons, not least of which being that you can't do serious due diligence on the asset before you buy it.
> 
> That's not the case with purchases of businesses like K-Mart.  If you know what you're doing there should be relatively few unknowns and little need to "see how it runs".  K-Mart was on the market for months.  Powdr should have had plenty of time to assess the capital needs of the business and come up with an operating plan.  Let me put it another way.  Why would you jeopardize your $80MM investment by being unwilling to invest in said investment to make it more attractive?  If you "want to see how it runs" or are otherwise hesitant to invest in your business in the first year you own it, then clearly it was a lousy decision for you to buy it in the first place.
> 
> If Powdr is going to stick by its "eat what you kill" philosophy, K-Mart is on the cusp of many lousy years.


I'm not talking about cash production...but if you really must, let's say you need the car to get you to work so you can make money, I don't know.  The point is you shouldn't throw millions away before you know the real problems.  It's pretty obvious that ASC has swept a lot of issues under rugs at all of their ski areas - it makes no sense to dump $10M (I mean, they're already investing $3M and that's considered too little here, so is $10M enough in your opnion?  Do you know how much stuff in the ski industry costs?) into a new purchase unless it's absolutely necessary - if one of the gondolas were broken, for instance, I bet they would certainly repair it with additional funds.

Killington is still operational - and as a result, they can get away with a minimal investment while they figure out what REALLY needs improvement.  My guess is they'll be around for longer than 7 months - which means they have many years to invest the tens of millions people on this board are demanding.

I'd argue that even if they did have the cash to invest right now, it wouldn't make a big difference since they're getting into this relatively late in the season.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

MadPadraic said:


> My point here is that unless you are looking at data that we aren't, there really is no way of knowing what sort of return privately held ski areas are making.



There's data/information/people in the know out there.  I can't say much more publically.



MadPadraic said:


> Back on topic: limiting Pico's days seems like incredibly bad PR. If it happened in isolation, it wouldn't be such a big deal. However, it comes on the heals of various other blunders and contributes to an overall anti-consumer trend.



The PR mess (while certainly not good) is not having as big an effect as we may think outside of AZ right now.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 19, 2007)

I have been 1/2 way following this....  All  I hear is how well Peaks has done,how bad Killington has done, and how excited everyone is about Boyne coming to Maine. 

 That is not just on boards, but people at the resorts/ bars eateries.  Lost of articles in print also.  The Rutland Herald has had a bunch of negitive articles.  Tv stations have been bringing the negitivitity up.

  Sk(Boyne) on the river board yester mentioned how they are going to handle the transition in a positive means.  Jist of the post was very aware of the views of how the K situation was proceeding.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

While they will probably have an issue matching skier visits without the cheap passes, I have a feeling Killington will see more revenue than last year.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> While they will probably have an issue matching skier visits without the cheap passes, I have a feeling Killington will see more revenue than last year.



I agree. 

 I also think they have lost some people at least in the short term.  Will the negitivity effect future developement to me is the question at hand.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Bob R said:


> I also think they have lost some people at least in the short term.  Will the negitivity effect future developement to me is the question at hand.



If they choose to pour money into the area in the next few years, it won't matter - there are plenty of skier visits to regain...if they're able to make the skiing and service as good as Okemo, they should be able to pull some skiers out of there, for instance.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 19, 2007)

I don't think the partnership can work unless the real estate developement is a success.  Just my opinion.  The quality of product on the hill can change alot of negitive feelings. How many none of us know.  I really hope it works.  Again I'm glad I'm not there.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Jul 19, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Peaks Resort is not a "western" company by any means.  Midwestern, yes, but they don't own anything in the west per se.



Don't forget forget about Utah-based RMR-Pacific which recently purchased Ragged.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> I'm not talking about cash production...but if you really must, let's say you need the car to get you to work so you can make money, I don't know.  The point is you shouldn't throw millions away before you know the real problems.


Your company isn't going to pay you more b/c your car has nice rims and a new paint job.  The only way the analogy works in your example is if you knowingly buy a clunker and invest money to make it more reliable so you can make it to work more often.  In that case, you would presumably not pay top dollar for said clunker, and would instead discount the value of the vehicle to account for the money you're going to have to invest soon after you buy it.  In a similar manner, it seems inconceivable to me that Powdr would spend $80MM and then declare that there is no major capital available to finance upgrades that even casual observers know are absolutely necessary at K.




> It's pretty obvious that ASC has swept a lot of issues under rugs at all of their ski areas - it makes no sense to dump $10M (I mean, they're already investing $3M and that's considered too little here, so is $10M enough in your opnion?  Do you know how much stuff in the ski industry costs?) into a new purchase unless it's absolutely necessary - if one of the gondolas were broken, for instance, I bet they would certainly repair it with additional funds.


I'm sorry, but $3MM for a place the size of Killington is really just what you would call "stay in business" capital.  That's money to ensure the place is meeting code and not looking completely run down (as opposed to just mostly run down).  It's a drop in the bucket.  At a place that size, the average skier won't notice anything short of $6-7MM - that amount can actually buy you something.  As you said yourself - this stuff is expensive.  What exactly does $3MM get you?



> Killington is still operational - and as a result, they can get away with a minimal investment while they figure out what REALLY needs improvement.  My guess is they'll be around for longer than 7 months - which means they have many years to invest the tens of millions people on this board are demanding.



They should have figured this out during due diligence.  They had plenty of time to inspect the snowmaking system, lifts, and lodges.  Plenty of time to analyze data from the seller and the VT/New England ski industry in general.  Why would anyone spend $80MM if they didn't know what really needed improvement?  That makes no sense.



> I'd argue that even if they did have the cash to invest right now, it wouldn't make a big difference since they're getting into this relatively late in the season.


There are shades of grey here.  I don't think anyone should realistically expect some sort of master capital plan being implemented mostly this season.  But some of these things don't require the long lead times you seem to believe.  They bought K just a short time after Peaks bought Mt. Snow and yet aren't doing nearly as much relative to the size of the resort as Peaks is.  Would it be realistic to expect a new gondola or doubled in size KBL?  Absolutely not.  But a replacement for the Skye Peak Quad or Snowdon Triple is an obvious need.  I'm sure you can easily buy a new fleet of groomers on the quick.  There are all sorts of improvements you could make to your snowmaking system without much lead time.  They've chosen D) None of the above.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> There are shades of grey here.  I don't think anyone should realistically expect some sort of master capital plan being implemented mostly this season.  But some of these things don't require the long lead times you seem to believe.  They bought K just a short time after Peaks bought Mt. Snow and yet aren't doing nearly as much relative to the size of the resort as Peaks is.  Would it be realistic to expect a new gondola or doubled in size KBL?  Absolutely not.  But a replacement for the Skye Peak Quad or Snowdon Triple is an obvious need.  I'm sure you can easily buy a new fleet of groomers on the quick.  There are all sorts of improvements you could make to your snowmaking system without much lead time.  They've chosen D) None of the above.



I'm not sure what your experience in the industry is, but you could not have ordered a new chairlift when the transaction closed for this season.

You clearly seem to favor ASC spending - look where that got them.  You'll find that many successful businessmen run a business as is for a spell before any signifcant funds are invested.  Killington was not as transparent as one may think - look at the 'lifetime' pass fiasco - SP/Powdr had no knowledge of those passes until the 11th hour.  With a company in such bad shape as ASC, there are likely PLENTY of surprises hidden.  I highly doubt they spent $85M only to let the place rot.  What if they spend $3M a year?  That's $30M in a decade - not a small sum.  Look around at other areas - they tend spend in big bursts vs. gradually.  This is what tends to hurt/kill ski areas.  Some of the most successful areas, at least in terms of profitability, have done so by slow, steady investments.

Not spending $10M this year will not kill or seriously harm Killington (unless there is a building or lift in danger of collapsing that we do not know about, but I find that somewhat unlikely).

The 1980s and 1990s version of the ski industry made the mistake of dumping large sums of money into ski areas and passing on the concept that that itself makes a ski area good.  Just like in the MLB, that is not always the case.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 19, 2007)

@Tin, I agree with you on all counts...

The only investment I know of is 300k to fix one of the main snowmaking pipes at Pico.
That leaves 2.7m to:

Repaint almost all the lifts.
Put the side back on the Summit Lodge
Fix the snowmaking system....I've heard that they were having pressure issues last year, which is why they could barely use the tower guns on SS and other places.

Those are just some of the urgent needs, to fix the place up, and there's no way they're going to be able to do even all of that.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> @Tin, I agree with you on all counts...
> 
> The only investment I know of is 300k to fix one of the main snowmaking pipes at Pico.
> That leaves 2.7m to:
> ...



The 300k is more than just a fix for a snowmaking pipe - it has to involve a signifcant amount of new pipe.

Depending upon how they're coming to this $3m number, its plenty to do those jobs.  If they're figuring in labor, though, then it's a bit more of a stretch.  Hopefully, it's excluding labor (since those positions are likely already forecasted in the books - there's no reason maint. can't paint/weld/do basic carpentry).


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure what your experience in the industry is, but you could not have ordered a new chairlift when the transaction closed for this season.


I don't think that's categorically correct, but that wouldn't be the only way to illustrate increased value to their potential customers.  Hell, even if they had announced their intentions to replace one of those lifts next summer, that would have sufficed.  Alas, no.



> You clearly seem to favor ASC spending - look where that got them.  You'll find that many successful businessmen run a business as is for a spell before any signifcant funds are invested.


This is the classic example of a strawman.  You are arguing against a position I haven't taken.  I don't favor "ASC spending".  ASC got into trouble with over-aggresive expansion of its empire followed by over-aggressive capital plans piled on top of lousy operational execution and controls.  No one, least of all me, thinks these guys should come in and drop $28MM like ASC did at Sugarbush or the untold millions they've spent at The Canyons.  As I said in the post you quoted, there are many shades of grey here.  Powdr could make real, material, noticeable improvements for $6-10MM.  Lord knows the place needs it.  Skiing is a capital/asset intensive business these days.  there are few successful businessmen who buy such businesses and starve them of capital as a means of turning them around.  Truth be told, I agree that the top line revenue figures will probably be a bit higher given the new pass prices, but their day business is going to suffer and the final nail will be in the coffin for the hard won branding that Pres Smith worked to build.



> Killington was not as transparent as one may think - look at the 'lifetime' pass fiasco - SP/Powdr had no knowledge of those passes until the 11th hour.  With a company in such bad shape as ASC, there are likely PLENTY of surprises hidden.


You haven't done much M&A work.  That's just poor due diligence by Powdr.  Everyone and their brother knew they existed.  A 10 minute perusal on K-Zone of this place would have revealed that.  If you know what you're doing, there shouldn't be any material hidden surprises and, if there are, you should have a contract crafted so that the Seller indemnifies you for any costs incurred to fix the problem.  If there were so many egregious hidden surprises, Powdr would be slapping ASC with a lawsuit so fastit would make your head spin.



> I highly doubt they spent $85M only to let the place rot.  What if they spend $3M a year?  That's $30M in a decade - not a small sum.  Look around at other areas - they tend spend in big bursts vs. gradually.  This is what tends to hurt/kill ski areas.  Some of the most successful areas, at least in terms of profitability, have done so by slow, steady investments.


As I said before, $3MM is chump change on an annual basis for a resort the size of Killington.  That's enough to do some repainting and basic "stay in business" type work to ensure you meet code and don't kill people in the winter.  Which successful areas are you talking about?  Okemo?  The Muellers invested heavily in new lifts and terrain at both Okemo and Sunapee as a prelude to significant investments (or in Sunapee's case, attempted investments) in real estate.  Okemo was a half-assed mountain with mediocre snowmaking and mostly t-bars when they bought it.  Improve the product first to a level that your target demographic expects, then work on the real estate side.  the work at those places didn't happen all in one season, but there were notable and material improvements each season.  Please help me understand what other major resorts have been able to achieve profitability by simply investing to fix what's broken?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 19, 2007)

Bob R said:


> I don't think the partnership can work unless the real estate developement is a success.  Just my opinion.  The quality of product on the hill can change alot of negitive feelings. How many none of us know.  I really hope it works.  Again I'm glad I'm not there.



Ah! Exactly...this is a company with most of its' experience in real estate. This purchase was made with an eye on the real estate, not skiing.

They're going to go after that real estate and develop that first. That's where money is going to be invested. That's what they do.

It doesn't appeal to anyone who is a regular here as is obvious. It won't appeal to locals or the hardcore skier element either. The Rutland paper printed a very negative article about it; man, it's got to take alot of awful negative feelings to print bad PR about the ski area right up the road!

Diminishing the skiing aspect of the area makes all of us here pissed off. But, other than an obvious desire by alot of folks here to see them fail and accompanying reasons why we THINK they may, we really can't tell today. At least I'm not that good.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Jul 19, 2007)

Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer:

• Pico Snowmaking pipe replacement on Upper Pike will begin in late August. We're spending more than $300,000 on this project that will greatly increase our snowmaking capacity and efficiency on the upper portion of the mountain. In addition, you’ll see new hydrants as well
• New Low E snow guns, both heads for existing guns and portable sled units are on order and will be here in time for us to start making snow in early November
• New computer hardware for Snowmaking Central to be installed

While these are not real sexy (i.e. new trails, lifts, lodges, etc.) projects, there are things that really, really needed to get done. But, what does that mean for skiers and riders? These upgrades will allow us to increased our snowmaking firepower from an air and water pressure standpoint. The new computer hardware will greatly increase our monitoring of on-hill operations, which will translate into increased efficiency.

The pipe is on order and will be here in late August. We'll have install photos on the k.com site once the project gets going.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer:
> 
> • Pico Snowmaking pipe replacement on Upper Pike will begin in late August. We're spending more than $300,000 on this project that will greatly increase our snowmaking capacity and efficiency on the upper portion of the mountain. In addition, you’ll see new hydrants as well
> • New Low E snow guns, both heads for existing guns and portable sled units are on order and will be here in time for us to start making snow in early November
> ...



Thank you, I was just about ready to bow out of this debate because there's not much more I can say in a public forum!  Since you seem to be in the know, will the paint/summit lodge repair projects be done also?


----------



## SpinmasterK (Jul 19, 2007)

We will be painting a number of lifts, and the bathrooms at Snowshed and Ramshead will be upgraded. In addition, we have already installed new carpet in Snowshed. Other than that, pretty much all other projects are behind the scenes, such as computers, software and operational systems.


----------



## Greg (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Since you seem to be in the know



Just an FYI - SpinmasterK is Tom Horrocks, Communications Manager for Killington. Thanks for the update Tom!


----------



## nycskier (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer:
> 
> • Pico Snowmaking pipe replacement on Upper Pike will begin in late August. We're spending more than $300,000 on this project that will greatly increase our snowmaking capacity and efficiency on the upper portion of the mountain. In addition, you’ll see new hydrants as well
> • New Low E snow guns, both heads for existing guns and portable sled units are on order and will be here in time for us to start making snow in early November
> ...



Spin, thanks for the update! Glad to hear about the new snowmaking capacity. The more snow you guys blow the happier we are!!! :-D


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer:
> 
> • Pico Snowmaking pipe replacement on Upper Pike will begin in late August. We're spending more than $300,000 on this project that will greatly increase our snowmaking capacity and efficiency on the upper portion of the mountain. In addition, you’ll see new hydrants as well
> • New Low E snow guns, both heads for existing guns and portable sled units are on order and will be here in time for us to start making snow in early November
> ...




Excellent.  Am looking forward to that.  As you know, Ms. TB and I are Pico skiers.  Keep us posted.


----------



## nycskier (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> We will be painting a number of lifts, and the bathrooms at Snowshed and Ramshead will be upgraded. In addition, we have already installed new carpet in Snowshed. Other than that, pretty much all other projects are behind the scenes, such as computers, software and operational systems.



If I am not mistaken the new carpet in Snowshed was an ASC project not Powdrs. 

They were already pulling out the carpet at Snowshed before the deal was closed. I remember joking with some friends at the time that ASC sold the mountain but not the carpets! 

I was told by some people who worked at Killington that the snowshed carpet replacement was in the works for sometime and had been plan even before the sale was announced.


----------



## SpinmasterK (Jul 19, 2007)

nycskier said:


> If I am not mistaken the new carpet in Snowshed was an ASC project not Powdrs.
> 
> They were already pulling out the carpet at Snowshed before the deal was closed. I remember joking with some friends at the time that ASC sold the mountain but not the carpets!
> 
> I was told by some people who worked at Killington that the snowshed carpet replacement was in the works for sometime and had been plan even before the sale was announced.



Yes, you are correct. However, I was just pointing out some of the new items.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Yes, you are correct. However, I was just pointing out some of the new items.



Thank you, I think you just did your area a great service here.  It puts in better perspective for those outside the industry what $3M can buy.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer:
> 
> • Pico Snowmaking pipe replacement on Upper Pike will begin in late August. We're spending more than $300,000 on this project that will greatly increase our snowmaking capacity and efficiency on the upper portion of the mountain. In addition, you’ll see new hydrants as well
> • New Low E snow guns, both heads for existing guns and portable sled units are on order and will be here in time for us to start making snow in early November
> ...



Appreciate this feedback alot...keep posting.

Talk to us.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 19, 2007)

Hope this is not a dulicate, thankx for posting tom. I think you have a tough job that you do with the right attitutude and goals.  You will have the chance this witner to show what the mountain can do.  Keep posting here.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Thank you, I think you just did your area a great service here.  It puts in better perspective for those outside the industry what $3M can buy.



Not much.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 19, 2007)

SpinmasterK said:


> These upgrades will allow us to increased our snowmaking firepower from an air and water pressure standpoint.



Will you be able to use the Tower guns this year?


----------



## SpinmasterK (Jul 19, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> Will you be able to use the Tower guns this year?



Yes, that is the plan. However, there are different types of heads on tower mount guns. Some have new Low E heads (especially on the upper portions of the mountain) and most others have older models. Last year on Superstar we used the ground-based K3000 guns for most of the production due to marginal weather conditions, namely high humidity. Remember the fog banks the guns created there last year? Low E and some tower mount guns/heads work best in wet bulb temperatures (combined air temp and humidity) below 24 degrees. With the K3000, we are able to produce snow at web bulb temperatures up to 28 degrees. However, in those conditions we're using an incredible amount of air pressure!


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Not much.



Why don't you help provide them with some additional capital?  I mean if $3M isn't much, then getting them another $10M shouldn't be an issue.  It's going to have a great return on investment, right?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Why don't you help provide them with some additional capital?  I mean if $3M isn't much, then getting them another $10M shouldn't be an issue.  It's going to have a great return on investment, right?



This isn't productive. 

I mean, if someone wants to take the approach that $3M isn't much, neither is $10M. You'll never understand that logic.

The real problem is that the new owners have to deal with and somehow satisfy this ethic.
The $3M bone was too small I guess.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Why don't you help provide them with some additional capital?  I mean if $3M isn't much, then getting them another $10M shouldn't be an issue.  It's going to have a great return on investment, right?




That's just silly.  So because I don't think $3MM represents much in the way of capital, I would need to reach into my bank account to come up with a number that makes sense?  Since you are the self-proclaimed industry insider, since when does new carpeting and fresh paint on the lifts represent a notable portion of an off-season capital plan?  That just wreaks of spin and desperation.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> since when does new carpeting and fresh paint on the lifts represent a notable portion of an off-season capital plan?  That just wreaks of spin and desperation.



I don't recall spinmasterK citing that in his initial post highlighting the expansion.  I recall lots of snowmaking.  Though obviously not all of the $3M is going into snowmaking, $3M goes a lot farther with an air/water system than with a fan gun system.

SP/Powdr are putting more into Killington in their first partial year of ownership than ASC had recently.  If you really think they should pour more money in, help them out or don't ski there.  I think they're putting an adequate investment in for their first 7 months of ownership.  They could get by without any investment if they really wanted to be cheap.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> I don't recall spinmasterK citing that in his initial post highlighting the expansion.  I recall lots of snowmaking.  Though obviously not all of the $3M is going into snowmaking, $3M goes a lot farther with an air/water system than with a fan gun system.



That's a pretty disingenuous statement.  The reason SpinmasterK focused on snowmaking in his original post on the subject was due to the following preface:



> Here is a quick look at some of the snowmaking upgrades going on at Killington and Pico this summer


I'd like to know the breakdown of the $3MM between real snowmaking improvements, back-office computers/systems, and paint/carpet nonsense.  Even in the snowmaking number, it would be interesting to know what is just "stay in business" type stuff and what is actual improvement of the system.  If you are replacing compressors or pipes that were on their last legs anyway, I really can't give you much credit for an "improvement" per se.  You had to do it just to keep the system functioning.



> SP/Powdr are putting more into Killington in their first partial year of ownership than ASC had recently.  If you really think they should pour more money in, help them out or don't ski there.  I think they're putting an adequate investment in for their first 7 months of ownership.  They could get by without any investment if they really wanted to be cheap.



Talk about setting a low bar.  From what I recall, ASC had been spending about $2MM per year in capital there.  Sometimes more, sometimes less.  That's not much of an increase over a bar which was set absurdly low.  If they tried to get by without any investment, they wouldn't get by - they'd likely go out of business as things started to break down on a more frequent basis.  You've already stipulated that the place has been run into the ground by a lack of capital from ASC.  You've furthermore noted that notable upgrades at ski resorts are expensive.  So are you trying to push the notion that the extra $1MM from POWDR this year is going to have some sort of noticeable impact?  Even the snowmaking imprvements they've deatiled don't mean much if they are shortening the season yet again.  Moreover, much of those improvements (Low Energy guns) are designed to save them money more than increase the quantity of snow produced.


----------



## threecy (Jul 19, 2007)

Are you a season pass holder at Killington/Pico, or an owner of SP/Powdr?


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> I don't recall spinmasterK citing that in his initial post highlighting the expansion.  I recall lots of snowmaking.  Though obviously not all of the $3M is going into snowmaking, $3M goes a lot farther with an air/water system than with a fan gun system.
> 
> SP/Powdr are putting more into Killington in their first partial year of ownership than ASC had recently.  If you really think they should pour more money in, help them out or don't ski there.  I think they're putting an adequate investment in for their first 7 months of ownership.  They could get by without any investment if they really wanted to be cheap.



There is no reason why they SHOULDN'T be putting more money into the place than ASC did. They have more money, and much needs to be done to make up for many years of little spending.  When a rinky dink outfit like Peaks Resort is going balls out to show their commitment, and this is all POWDR is going to spend this year, puhlease. What a let down.... 

Yes, a carpet is definitely something that's needed. A red carpet for the herbs to roll in on. Nevermind one side of the damn Peak Lodge is falling off!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 19, 2007)

threecy said:


> Are you a season pass holder at Killington/Pico, or an owner of SP/Powdr?



D) None of the above


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> D) None of the above



End of story then.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

Newpylong said:


> There is no reason why they SHOULDN'T be putting more money into the place than ASC did. They have more money, and much needs to be done to make up for many years of little spending.  When a rinky dink outfit like Peaks Resort is going balls out to show their commitment, and this is all POWDR is going to spend this year, puhlease. What a let down....
> 
> Yes, a carpet is definitely something that's needed. A red carpet for the herbs to roll in on. Nevermind one side of the damn Peak Lodge is falling off!



They've only had the place for a few months...it won't even be a full calendar year until next year...give them a chance, what they're doing now is already more than ASC did recently.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> They've only had the place for a few months...it won't even be a full calendar year until next year...give them a chance, what they're doing now is already more than ASC did recently.



That's like saying that the next president will be better than Bush, the bar doesn't even require trying to get over.

ASC didn't even put in enough money to keep the place properly maintained, you need to be putting in much more money than that to fix everything that's broken, maintain everything else and improve the area.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> That's like saying that the next president will be better than Bush, the bar doesn't even require trying to get over.
> 
> ASC didn't even put in enough money to keep the place properly maintained, you need to be putting in much more money than that to fix everything that's broken, maintain everything else and improve the area.



And that would be like expecting the next President to do everything within the first 7 months of their term.  It's not reasonable.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> They've only had the place for a few months...it won't even be a full calendar year until next year...give them a chance, *what they're doing now is already more than ASC did recently.*



Eh?  ASC put about the same amount of $$$ into the place last year.  

But you're right...ASC did not hike pass rates, slash the season, close Pico midweek, cancel lifetime passes, fire people, and then openly say that they were considering cutting/eliminating passes that they give to local school kids.  So in that vein, POWDR has done more :wink:  Just more of the wrong kind of thing....just hoping it is a short-term "correction."


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> End of story then.




Oh, I see.  Because I'm not a frequent skier of the place nor a shareholder in POWDR, I am not qualified or entitled to observe what's going on?

Got it.

On the contrary - I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I should be positioned to speak from a position of relative objectivity.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> And that would be like expecting the next President to do everything within the first 7 months of their term.  It's not reasonable.



You continue to advance that nonsensical strawman that the only choice POWDR has is between the minimal $3MM they've committed to and some sort of $30MM catch-up for the years of neglect under ASC.  Please, for the sake of advancing this discussion, stop doing this.  No one is advocating this position and the only one talking about it is you.  It NOT a choice between all or nothing.  There is a whole lot of "something" they could do in between.

As I've stated before, and what you've repeatedly ignored, any time you buy a capital intensive business, an important part of the due diligence process is understanding the capital needs of the business and determining a path to address them in the short and long term.  It's no secret that K-Mart was for sale for months, so POWDR has had some time to come in and kick the tires.  This serves two functions.  First, it helps them determine how much they want to pay for the business - the more capital is requires post-acquisition, the less it's worth to them now.  Second, it helps them understand how they are going to meet their earnings or cash flow (or whatever other measure the want to use) goals going forward.  Just b/c they don't have a full year to work with doesn't mean they get a pass for not hitting the ground running.  I can assure you that they had the benefit of inheriting all sorts of potential capital projects that were gathering dust in a drawer somewhere.  If the K mgmt team was remotely sentient, they would have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done and and how much it would cost.  

Again, I'm not saying that POWDR should just come in and start throwing cash around for the hell of it.  What I'm saying is that this summer's capital plan is simply more of the same relative to what ASC was spending and, if the only notable changes will be the increased pass pricing and shorter season, I don't see how it all holds together.  I sure wish them luck though - the more people who are drawn to K, the fewer there are who would be curious to explore further north where the real skiing is.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> That's like saying that the next president will be better than Bush, the bar doesn't even require trying to get over.
> 
> ASC didn't even put in enough money to keep the place properly maintained, you need to be putting in much more money than that to fix everything that's broken, maintain everything else and improve the area.



No no no...please, don't let politics get even remotely involved in this exchange. PLEASE.

All that will do is eventually shut the whole discussion down.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Again, I'm not saying that POWDR should just come in and start throwing cash around for the hell of it.  What I'm saying is that this summer's capital plan is simply more of the same relative to what ASC was spending and, if the only notable changes will be the increased pass pricing and shorter season, I don't see how it all holds together.  I sure wish them luck though - the more people who are drawn to K, the fewer there are who would be curious to explore further north where the real skiing is.



I find this in contrast to what you've been saying.  You've had a fairly bitter tone toward SP/Powdr because you don't think they've put enough money into K-Mart/Pico in their first few months of ownership.  If you're not an owner or a passholder, it really doesn't affect you much, no?


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Eh?  ASC put about the same amount of $$$ into the place last year.
> 
> But you're right...ASC did not hike pass rates, slash the season, close Pico midweek, cancel lifetime passes, fire people, and then openly say that they were considering cutting/eliminating passes that they give to local school kids.  So in that vein, POWDR has done more :wink:  Just more of the wrong kind of thing....just hoping it is a short-term "correction."



My read on it is that SP/Powdr isn't throwing their regular summer payroll/maintenance budget into their 'expansion' figure, whereas ASC has in the past.  General opinion while ASC still was around was that anyone else would be an improvement.  Here, they step up, put down a little cash up front, and make the tough decisions that many successful businesses have to make (did they do them well?  No.).  It irks me that people are willing to basically send SP/Powdr to the gas chamber after a few months of ownership, but are willing to praise other still largely unproven ownership entities in the region.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

Ah....wow!

That got going pretty good. 

Is Spinmeister still here or is he keeping his head low while he runs for the hills?

Tin Woodsman, you are one passionate skier/AZer. I love it.

It's getting edgy but it's still civil. There are alot of deep seated and intense emotions here and some of it comes from folks who don't even ski at Killington. 

I'm very torn about the whole thing. I understand the K regulars and the disappointment they feel. I understand the folks from other ex-ASC areas who are laughing and saying we got the better end of this deal, our new owners are doing this and that. I really do.

But a still bigger part of me goes back to the hard business reality. I commented to someone offline that Killington just seems more closely bonded to the ASC name than those other resorts, almost like all the hatred towards ASC is concentrated there. K was the flagship resort in the east. And add in the NY/NJ demographic and all of the intense consumer expectations and I feel like POWDR is in a no win situation. I guess I feel they have alot more to overcome both in PR and the physical condition of their purchase, so I'm more willing to give them some slack. They are clearly the underdog here.

Maybe $3M isn't enough, but I will not call it token or chump change either. And I'll still wait until the snow flies or longer to say anything about the potential for success.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Maybe $3M isn't enough, but I will not call it token or chump change either. And I'll still wait until the snow flies or longer to say anything about the potential for success.



Certainly...I'm definitely sick of seeing them get tarred and feathered over nothing.  I can't get over the negativity over a $3M investment in their first few months of ownership - ungracious, ignorant, or maybe both.  $3M is a lot of money, especially to be investing into a risky business without much local experience.  We've been spoiled over the years with huge, tens of millions of dollars, expansions (which in the end couldn't actually be afforded), so $3M looks like nothing.  And we wonder why companies fold/divest/jack up prices/trim seasons/get cheap.

Give 'em a chance.  I'm not a fan of the ski area nor do I have any sort of interest in SP/Powdr, but I think the least we can do is give them a year to plant their feet and show us what they want to do before throwing them under the bus.  Trashing a new ownership group like this after just a few months is shortsighted.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> Certainly...I'm definitely sick of seeing them get tarred and feathered over nothing.



Well....you agreed earlier that they had made some bad PR moves.  



> I can't get over the negativity over a $3M investment in their first few months of ownership - ungracious, ignorant, or maybe both.  $3M is a lot of money, especially to be investing into a risky business without much local experience.



True...I think that it is just a rxn to the overall approach to things as of late.  



> We've been spoiled over the years with huge, tens of millions of dollars, expansions (which in the end couldn't actually be afforded), so $3M looks like nothing.  And we wonder why companies fold/divest/jack up prices/trim seasons/get cheap.



Very true.  



> Give 'em a chance.  I'm not a fan of the ski area nor do I have any sort of interest in SP/Powdr, but I think the least we can do is give them a year to plant their feet and show us what they want to do before throwing them under the bus.  Trashing a new ownership group like this after just a few months is shortsighted.



Again, much of the negativity stems from the bad PR moves (lifetime passes, job cuts, pass cuts, shortening season, closing Pico midweek, etc).  It's also in part because the original K-mart set the bar really high...and that is inherent with the "brand."


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Again, much of the negativity stems from the bad PR moves (lifetime passes, job cuts, pass cuts, shortening season, closing Pico midweek, etc).  It's also in part because the original K-mart set the bar really high...and that is inherent with the "brand."



TB, I'm agreeing with you , but I want to add one minor point of semantics.

The bad PR stems from them having to make tough and unpopular business decisions. Those decisions have lead to alot of bad feelings. 

Feelings can be changed...but they won't get the chance if they can't stay in business.

Maybe it's because I really have no horse in this race, but I see the whole picture and you really have to look at the forest and not just specific trees.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

JimG. said:


> TB, I'm agreeing with you , but I want to add one minor point of semantics.
> 
> The bad PR stems from them having to make tough and unpopular business decisions. Those decisions have lead to alot of bad feelings.



True.  It's a combo.

And honestly, a bad deal all around.  S-K-I really delivered a great experience, but in its last two years it was beginning to falter.  

ASC simply was never in a position to live up to those high expectations.  It made things worse.  So bad that these decisions had to be made by POWDR to even survive.


----------



## trtaylor (Jul 20, 2007)

In the overall scheme of things, I am relatively new and not an experienced New England skier. I've resisted posting in this thread, but I guess my guestion is, did not the new owners of Mount Snow, Sunday River, Sugarloaf, etc. also have tough business decisions to make? Why the difference in the way Peak and Boyne have been received, vs. Powdr?


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

trtaylor said:


> In the overall scheme of things, I am relatively new and not an experienced New England skier. I've resisted posting in this thread, but I guess my guestion is, did not the new owners of Mount Snow, Sunday River, Sugarloaf, etc. also have tough business decisions to make? Why the difference in the way Peak and Boyne have been received, vs. Powdr?



Peak has built a good reputation in their few years of NE ownership.  That, and they were able to spin the organizational changes a bit differently (more of an announce of 'so and so is joining' whereas SP/Powdr had more of the 'so and so is leaving' thing happen to them).

Boyne is still pretty new on the scene compared to the others (by a few months)...I think that the uncertainty of the Maine areas before the announcement has helped them if anything - there's a sigh of relief for the diehards that they'll stay together and still have relatively cheap passes.

Another thing that I think has gone unsaid is that there are two parties involved in Killington, whereas Mt. Snow/Attitash are clearly Peak run and Sugarloaf/SUnday River are clearly Boyne run.  Sometimes when you have to companies somewhat responsible for the same entity, neither is willing to jump up and stop PR damage (thinking that its the other's actions or lack thereof causing the issue and thus their responsibility to fix).

Regardless, SP/Powdr has an uphill fight.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

trtaylor said:


> In the overall scheme of things, I am relatively new and not an experienced New England skier. I've resisted posting in this thread, but I guess my guestion is, did not the new owners of Mount Snow, Sunday River, Sugarloaf, etc. also have tough business decisions to make? Why the difference in the way Peak and Boyne have been received, vs. Powdr?




I think that it also has to do with how the companies have approached the general public with regards to the process.  POWDR and SP Lands have been very quiet about it...leading to speculation, etc.  We have had little connection with them about what is going on.  Peak came in and basically has been trying to do as much PR as possible and reaching out.  Hence, good vibes.  

As for Boyne, well, they had the fortune of sitting back and watching what has happened.  Hell, the CEO  posted on the Sunday River board and said, "hey we're coming to town...looking forward to serving you," and has really taken a Win Smith approach to direct contact.  The guy did deliver some bad news, re: storm damage, but has really had a "can-do" attitude.  

I think that K-mart's "secrecy" and the fact that they had so many problems really has plagued them....


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

trtaylor said:


> In the overall scheme of things, I am relatively new and not an experienced New England skier. I've resisted posting in this thread, but I guess my guestion is, did not the new owners of Mount Snow, Sunday River, Sugarloaf, etc. also have tough business decisions to make? Why the difference in the way Peak and Boyne have been received, vs. Powdr?



I'll throw in what I've said in another thread...the ASC/Killington bond was far stronger than at the other resorts. Killington was the flagship resort, and alot of the negativity regarding ASC seems to be concentrated there. In addition, K seems to have been allowed to slide in terms of upgrades/maintenance to a greater extent than the other resorts. Throw in the NY/NJ demographic which is a tough crowd to deal with in good times and alot of unrealistic consumer expectations regarding prices and I think POWDR has more to overcome.

That said, their PR approach definitely needs a little polishing. They made some tough decisions regarding pass prices and season length and have offered little in the way of what is perceived as positive news to soften the blow.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

JimG. said:


> That said, their PR approach definitely needs a little polishing. They made some tough decisions regarding pass prices and season length and have offered little in the way of what is perceived as positive news to soften the blow.




EXACTLY.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

JimG. said:


> Throw in the NY/NJ demographic which is a tough crowd to deal with in good times and alot of unrealistic consumer expectations regarding prices



Wow that might explain a lot - Yankee fans!  Used to seeing the Boss throw around tens of millions of dollars like it's nothing...and with little consequences if it doesn't pay off.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> Wow that might explain a lot - Yankee fans!  Used to seeing the Boss throw around tens of millions of dollars like it's nothing...and with little consequences if it doesn't pay off.



Yeah, really.  :wink:

A good discussion so far, folks.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

Guys - 

While their lousy PR is absolutely a factor dirving the anger people have, let's realize that this isn't just about PR.  As someone who hasn't skied at K/Pico for a few years (but grew up skiing there) and has no interest in SP/POWDR, I think I'm a pretty neutral observer.  It's been stated that $3MM is a lot of money and is some sort of big improvement over what ASC was doing the last few years.  Well, I went and looked, and the numbers simply don't bear that out.  Here are the Killington press releases describing their improvements for the last three seasons of ASC ownership.  



> KILLINGTON RESORT – Tom Horrocks, thorrocks@killington.com, www.killington.com
> • *For the 2006-07 season *Killington Resort – the largest ski and snowboard resort in the eastern United States, featuring the most diverse terrain, an expansive lift network, the largest snowmaking system in the world and numerous off-mountain activities, including après, dining, shopping and lodging options – will debut a number of vacation experience enhancements.
> In addition, more than $1.5 million in resort improvements have taken place throughout the summer, including the opening of the Killington Grand Resort Hotel Spa and continued snowmaking upgrades.
> The new Spa leads the list of vacation experience enhancements, featuring a Vichy Shower wet room and a complete menu of massage, facials and pedicure treatments. Guests will see an increase in snowmaking efficiency for the world’s largest snowmaking system, an upgraded grooming fleet of 21 snowcats and new gondola ski racks to accommodate twin-tip and fat skis and snowboards.
> ...



So last season, ASC knew they were going to sell the place and was really scraping the bottom of the barrell with just $1.5MM in improvements, most of which was off-mountain but a piece of which was investment in Low E guns - clearly those aren't a big ticket item.

The season before, they invested $1MM in snowmaking improvements alone.  In addition to that, there is a laundry list of other items that likely added up to another $1.0-$1.5MM (though how one would classify carpeting and paint as a capitalizable item is beyond me).  

The season before, they delivered a further $2MM in snowmaking upgrades and various other bits and pieces that likely added up to a further $0.5MM-$1.0MM.

In sum, as I've stated in previous posts, ASC's avg capital in the last few years of its stewardship was in the $2.0 to $2.5MM range.  This included millions for "upgrades" to the snowmaking system.  Despite this investment, even the most casual observer will agree that the resort as a whole has continued to deteriorate at a faster and faster rate in the last few years.  In other words, ASC was spending far too little capital to sustain the upkeep of the fixed assets of K/Pico.  Are we seriously expected to believe that an "extra" half million to a million dollars this season will even stop the rot, let alone begin to turn the place around?  Seriously?  It just doesn't hold up.  No one expects an orgy of irresponsible capital.  A reasonable first step would be to invest at the level of depreciation.  I highly doubt they are close to that number with the $3MM figure.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> Wow that might explain a lot - Yankee fans!  Used to seeing the Boss throw around tens of millions of dollars like it's nothing...and with little consequences if it doesn't pay off.



Whether you're joking or not, that's exactly correct.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Guys -
> 
> While their lousy PR is absolutely a factor dirving the anger people have, let's realize that this isn't just about PR.  As someone who hasn't skied at K/Pico for a few years (but grew up skiing there) and has no interest in SP/POWDR, I think I'm a pretty neutral observer.  It's been stated that $3MM is a lot of money and is some sort of big improvement over what ASC was doing the last few years.  Well, I went and looked, and the numbers simply don't bear that out.  Here are the Killington press releases describing their improvements for the last three seasons of ASC ownership.
> 
> ...



But I assure you Tin Woodsman is not a Yankee fan.

I can't comment on specific expenses at Killington or any other ski area because I've never managed a ski area. 

But it's obvious the place needs work.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 20, 2007)

I believe someone had estimated K's level of depreciation at 6-8 million a year.

The point is, while they may be fixing much of what's broken, and even improving a few things, that extra money is still not enough to even keep K on the same level as some of it's weaker competitors, much less lead the pack. All they are doing, is slightly reducing the rate at which K is falling behind it's competitors.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> The point is, while they may be fixing much of what's broken, and even improving a few things, that extra money is still not enough to even keep K on the same level as some of it's weaker competitors, much less lead the pack. All they are doing, is slightly reducing the rate at which K is falling behind it's competitors.



Here's the thing though...Killington has been falling apart basically since the K1 was installed.  Even if SP/Powdr maintained the status quo (instead of investing an additional 20-50% over the RR) for *1 season*, it's not going to make a huge difference.  The tone around here makes it seem as if the sky is falling because SP/Powdr didn't wallpaper the lodges with cash in their first off-season (heck, it isn't really their first official off-season, since they haven't had a season yet).


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> I believe someone had estimated K's level of depreciation at 6-8 million a year.
> 
> The point is, while they may be fixing much of what's broken, and even improving a few things, that extra money is still not enough to even keep K on the same level as some of it's weaker competitors, much less lead the pack. *All they are doing, is slightly reducing the rate at which K is falling behind it's competitors*.




I'd be interested to know how that figure was arrived at, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.  Your characterization of the capital plan for this off-season is spot on.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> Here's the thing though...Killington has been falling apart basically since the K1 was installed.  Even if SP/Powdr maintained the status quo (instead of investing an additional 20-50% over the RR) for *1 season*, it's not going to make a huge difference.  The tone around here makes it seem as if the sky is falling because SP/Powdr didn't wallpaper the lodges with cash in their first off-season (heck, it isn't really their first official off-season, since they haven't had a season yet).



But how do you turn the thing around when you piss everyone off before you open your doors and insist on an "eat what you kill" capital program?


----------



## JimG. (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'd be interested to know how that figure was arrived at, but it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.  Your characterization of the capital plan for this off-season is spot on.



Does anyone care to try to summarize the general condition of the major competitors when they were purchased from ASC compared to Killington? Better? Worse?

I know that even if K is much worse it's only a good reason to say they should spend more now anyway. That's not where I'm going.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> But how do you turn the thing around when you piss everyone off before you open your doors and insist on an "eat what you kill" capital program?



Figure things out by running it quasi-status-quo your first season, see how things go, all while building a more precise business plan.  As much as they know from the sales proceedings, they don't know it all yet.  Just like buying a used car (again, not talking about making cash back from it, but I like to use the analogy because it went off like passing gas in church), there's often rust that's been covered up by a quick coat of touchup paint that doesn't come through during the Lemon period.  Don't empty your bank account on a spoiler and fancy rims, only to find out you need to replace a rusting fender.  If you have another year or two on the brake pads, there isn't an immediate need to replace them all - you may discover there's a larger problem with the braking system.  Etc.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> Figure things out by running it quasi-status-quo your first season, see how things go, all while building a more precise business plan.  As much as they know from the sales proceedings, they don't know it all yet.  Just like buying a used car (again, not talking about making cash back from it, but I like to use the analogy because it went off like passing gas in church), there's often rust that's been covered up by a quick coat of touchup paint that doesn't come through during the Lemon period.  Don't empty your bank account on a spoiler and fancy rims, only to find out you need to replace a rusting fender.  If you have another year or two on the brake pads, there isn't an immediate need to replace them all - you may discover there's a larger problem with the braking system.  Etc.




So, if after a year or two of operation, Powdr finally comes around to realize that K/Pico is going to cost more to operate and grow than they thought, are you advocating that they sell the place to the next sucker in line?  That seems like a pretty risky way to spend $85MM to me.  

You don't plunk down that kind of cake without a detailed due diligence, capital plan, and operating plan.  Given the "surprise" of the lifetime passes, and their insistence on maintaining the "eat what you kill" capital policy, I'm not sure these guys did a very good job peaking under the hood.  Perhaps they weren't used to the impacts that the generally wet New England climate can have on the infrastructure of a ski area.  More corosion.  More mold and rot.  Wilder and wider temperature swings, leading to cracks in all manner of surfaces.  I don't think these guys realized exactly what they were getting into.


----------



## threecy (Jul 20, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> So, if after a year or two of operation, Powdr finally comes around to realize that K/Pico is going to cost more to operate and grow than they thought, are you advocating that they sell the place to the next sucker in line?  That seems like a pretty risky way to spend $85MM to me.



I don't think that's what would happen.  My guess is they have an investment plan in place but aren't going ot act upon it significantly until they have a season under their belt.  Once they have a more precise idea of what needs to be done (as well as additional capital from potential real estate development), they'd be foolish not to sink in some significant money to get Killington back up to speed.

If they can't do that, then yes, it could end up going 'to the next sucker line.'  This is how a lot of ski areas operate - owners don't know the mess they're getting into until its too late - then spend the rest of their ownership trying to dump the place.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 20, 2007)

threecy said:


> I don't think that's what would happen.  My guess is they have an investment plan in place but aren't going ot act upon it significantly until they have a season under their belt.  Once they have a more precise idea of what needs to be done (as well as additional capital from potential real estate development), they'd be foolish not to sink in some significant money to get Killington back up to speed.
> 
> If they can't do that, then yes, it could end up going 'to the next sucker line.'  This is how a lot of ski areas operate - owners don't know the mess they're getting into until its too late - then spend the rest of their ownership trying to dump the place.



Well id Powdr was a public company, based on this strategy, I'd be shorting them all day long.


----------



## threecy (Jul 21, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Well id Powdr was a public company, based on this strategy, I'd be shorting them all day long.



I don't think I'd ever invest in a publically owned ski company (I like my money, and NG gives me even more)...but I think I'd be careful shorting this one on medium term.


----------



## Greg (Jul 23, 2007)

Interesting letter:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/OPINION02/707230323/1037/OPINION02


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 23, 2007)

Greg said:


> Interesting letter:
> 
> http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/OPINION02/707230323/1037/OPINION02




Interesting indeed.  As you all recall, I skied a lot at Pico this season and was concerned about the midweek closing and the Pico Ski Club.  Kudos for giving them the heads up...shows me that they are serious about Pico skiers.  

If anyone is interested, the author was replying to *this piece* which was critical of POWDR.  My view is that things really could not get much worse for Pico, and seeing snowmaking pipe in the lot is progress...considering that ASC ran it into the ground...even worse than Killington.  So yeah, a $399 pass may be more than last season, but if they deliver a better product and "run" the resort, then it is worth it.  

Besides, there are not many 2,000 vert ski areas with a no-blackout $399 pass.  Period.  FWIW Pat's Peak is at $299 or so...with 700 vert.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 23, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Interesting indeed.  As you all recall, I skied a lot at Pico this season and was concerned about the midweek closing and the Pico Ski Club.  Kudos for giving them the heads up...shows me that they are serious about Pico skiers.
> 
> If anyone is interested, the author was replying to *this piece* which was critical of POWDR.  My view is that things really could not get much worse for Pico, and seeing snowmaking pipe in the lot is progress...considering that ASC ran it into the ground...even worse than Killington.  So yeah, a $399 pass may be more than last season, but if they deliver a better product and "run" the resort, then it is worth it.
> 
> Besides, there are not many 2,000 vert ski areas with a no-blackout $399 pass.  Period.  FWIW Pat's Peak is at $299 or so...with 700 vert.



That's a good find by Greg...interesting that a group that is so totally dependent on what POWDR does is impressed by what they're doing. And they feel taken care of. That's alot different from the vibe you get here at AZ for the most part.

POWDR is taking the road less travelled...not promising anything but working behind the scenes to take care of a core customer base. And I'll bet you they have other such positive works in progress we haven't heard about yet.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 23, 2007)

I will say it again....Give them five years and then look back on this thread.


----------



## Greg (Jul 23, 2007)

ALLSKIING said:


> I will say it again....Give them five years and then look back on this thread.



I think we'll have a more accurate view even just after this season. That's part of the issue here. Folks are hesitant to put money down on the unknown, which is understandable.


----------



## JimG. (Jul 23, 2007)

Greg said:


> I think we'll have a more accurate view even just after this season. That's part of the issue here. Folks are hesitant to put money down on the unknown, which is understandable.



The greater the risk the greater the potential reward.

I'm looking out my window and it's pouring rain. Some new owners have made some grand promises, others have not. I'm sure most of the promises will be met, or at least the effort will be made. 

If you're hesitant to put down money on the unknown, you shouldn't buy a season pass anywhere. Because it isn't a guarantee. Ever. The weather could be a disaster. 

Or it could be an epic winter. Tons of natural snow. Will the millions these resorts (I include POWDR here) spend on snowmaking upgrades going to matter then? It'll suck if you don't have a season pass in that case.

I don't care which resort we're discussing, in the end THE SKIER has to make a decision on what to do. And it will involve risk no matter where you choose to ski.


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 26, 2007)

threecy said:


> Here's the thing though...Killington has been falling apart basically since the K1 was installed.  Even if SP/Powdr maintained the status quo (instead of investing an additional 20-50% over the RR) for *1 season*, it's not going to make a huge difference.  The tone around here makes it seem as if the sky is falling because SP/Powdr didn't wallpaper the lodges with cash in their first off-season (heck, it isn't really their first official off-season, since they haven't had a season yet).



threecry....you seem like a decent guy, so I'm going to take it easy on you.   

That said, you very ill informed about this situation and the facts on the ground, to the point of blatantly spreading false information.  Don't even attempt to argue with me, I have the backing of some very smart people who are very well informed about this and we are not diluding ourselves about this situation.

- As Tin Woodsman has so adroitly pointed out, Powdr is not investing signifigantly more in the resort compared to years past.  ASC had around $13+ million per year it could spend on capital projects at all 8 resorts, due to their debt agreements.  Read the ASC annual reports.  Killington got a decent bit every year, after the Canyons, Steamboat, and SR. But nowhere near enough.  They tried, even though they had crushing debt.  Perhaps they spent too much capital at the Canyons for questionable reasons, who knows.  

-  What is enough?  As TW says, investing at the book depreciation figure for Killington. That just so happens to be around $8 million per year in '06, per the sales agreement with POWDR/SP.  Instaid, they are going for $3 mil this year, with $3-5mil in coming years.  With that kind of investment, Killington will never recover it's market postion.

- If you start doing the math, you'll see that Killington is in a pretty big hole with it's upkeep. About $5-6 million short per year for the last 6-8 years.  Or around $30 million dollars, give or take.  They have tons of capacity on the hill, but since the resort is in marginal shape, and not offering the product it used to, they can't get the skier visits to fully utilize it.  They only hit peak capacity on major holiday weekends in February.

- There is no mystery of what needs to be done at Killington.  All the top level ops people were retained during the sale, and they certainly knew what the important things were that needed to be done.  They could have easily poured $5-10 million into the place right off the bat to make it work better.  The list is a mile long.  Maybe $2-3 million into things that people would immediately notice as in improvement to the skiing experience - that helps drive skier visits and make people feel better about paying more for a pass.  Instaid, they simply fired all the top ops people, and are now running around trying to figure out how they are going to actually run the mountain next year.  It's amature hour in the admin building....and it's not even ski season yet.

- Overall, by cutting the top operations people, cutting the ski season and everything that goes with that (ie. SNOWMAKING), marginal investment, cutting lift and lodge services.....there is no way they can drive skier visits while justifying their higher prices.  That means less people will come.  Way less.  Even though they may think they can improve their revenue yields per visit to compensate, it will not be enough to offset the loss in visits.  Overall, if Killington is not providing the product, they simply cannot put 1,000,000+ skier visits on the hill every season - no eastern resort can unless they have a spec-tack-culaar product, at a reasonable price, within reach of NYC.  We've seen this with OKEMO's growth over the pas few years.  Killington/Pico is fundimentally set up to put 1,000,000 to 1,400,000 visits on the mountain each year - if you're not getting that, major cutbacks need to be made to the skiing product (lifts operating, snowmaking/season length), which massively decreases the attractiveness of the product overall....because the mountain just doesn't ski right, especially to the average person.

- Want to talk about the ALL4ONE pass?  Fine. Go read the ASC annual reports FIRST.  It was a brilliant yield management tool.  All it did was cut into their discount ticket sales, but helped draw traffic to the ski area, and get people to spend money on other things, while getting people to accept a lower quality product.  Many all4one passes were underutilized.  They ran an operating profit of $8-12+ million at Killington each of the last 4 years, this is reflected in the selling price of the resort, and is more than enough to be sustainable if ASC wasn't taking away all the profits to pay down debt. 

- Think of it like Walmart.  It's a huge store with all sorts of products, that appeals to all segments of the market at reasonable value.  Now, what would happen if you were to cut the size of the store in half, offer half the variety of products...but cut prices by 30%?  What if they let the store get run down and it smelled funny?  People would accept the lack of variety or quailty or environment, and still shop there because of the extreme value.  There might also be other stores in the area, selling better products with better variety, but at the old higher prices still, or even higher.....they would do well because many people would need or want those better products.   Now, what if someone came along and bought Walmart........and suddenly thought that they should be charging more for their products and variety, amounts equal to the nicest stores in the area? What if they cut their variety back even further, and were only open for few a few hours on the weekend? 

What would happen to the mighty Walmart?  Would people continue to shop there?

Fact is, people are pissed to be paying more at Killington, when it's looking like POWDR is going to do very little to do better than ASC, and very well could do much worse.


----------



## Greg (Jul 26, 2007)

*Put down the thesaurus*

I barely made it past "adroitly"... :lol:


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 26, 2007)

Greg said:


> I barely made it past "adroitly"... :lol:



Should I stick to using small words here on A-zone?  

You know, I once bought one of those little electronic dictionaries you get a walmart...20,000 words, etc.  Anything I had to look up wasn't in it......


----------



## threecy (Jul 26, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> threecry....you seem like a decent guy, so I'm going to take it easy on you.
> 
> That said, you very ill informed about this situation and the facts on the ground, to the point of blatantly spreading false information.  Don't even attempt to argue with me, I have the backing of some very smart people who are very well informed about this and we are not diluding ourselves about this situation.



What's your ski industry experience?  I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in this thread.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 26, 2007)

threecy said:


> What's your ski industry experience? I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in this thread.


 
Almost getting knocked out by me cause he almost hit me on Superstar as he wrecklessly flew by. Next time it won't be almost, I'll flatten the lil bastid.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 26, 2007)

Oh brother, he made his way here now.


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 26, 2007)

threecy said:


> What's your ski industry experience?  I'm pretty much done playing devil's advocate in this thread.




I've been experiencing it for quite a long time....there's alot to be said for being a good observer.


----------



## threecy (Jul 26, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> I've been experiencing it for quite a long time....there's alot to be said for being a good observer.



I think this topic has been debated to death, so I'm not going to bother countering each of your points, as much as I'd like to (you seem rather patronizing in that post, maybe I'm just reading it wrong).


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 27, 2007)

threecy said:


> I think this topic has been debated to death, so I'm not going to bother countering each of your points, as much as I'd like to (you seem rather patronizing in that post, maybe I'm just reading it wrong).



Just simply correcting you on serveral points.

If you have a come back, by all means.  But make sure you have facts and valid analysis to back it up.  Please.

As I said, you don't seem like a bad guy, but you're not getting enough of the facts down.


----------



## koreshot (Jul 27, 2007)

Oh great, Highway Star is here.  As if we didn't suffer enough on TGR.

Mr. HS, you seem to be marvelous at pissing people off at any internet community you go to.  This is sad, cause quite possibly you are a nice, intelligent person that could have lots of good thoughts to share.  I have seen videos of you (assuming it was really you) rocking your race stock skis and I gotta say, other than the slight backseat approach, you are a damn good skier... way better than me at least.

So whats the problem?  Tone the attitude and ego down a bit and you should be golden.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 27, 2007)

Screw HS, Mr Koreshot, nice to hear from you, where you been?


----------



## koreshot (Jul 27, 2007)

Back to the topic...  and this may have been voiced by other people in this thread, but im not reading 30 pages all over again.

I skied Pico twice last year and both times was big time dissapointed by the lack of challenging terrain.  It could have been cause I didn't have a local or someone that knows the mountain with me, but for an average visitor that is relatively open to exploring the less popular, beat up trails and trees, I didn't find anything really worth while skiing there...  I did like the low crowds, the more old school atmosphere an a generally chill environment, especially compared to K.  That usually goes a long way with me, but only if the terrain is good too.  For example, I love the old school feel of Alta and Solitude, but I wouldn't ski there if they didn't have the awesome terrain and snow that they do.

So from the skiing perspective, given my experience and my preferences in terrain and snow, I can't say I care all that much about Pico closing on some weekdays.


----------



## koreshot (Jul 27, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Screw HS, Mr Koreshot, nice to hear from you, where you been?



Good to be back... I was in my summer hybernation.  Actually I still am, cursing every day about the heat and how miserable summer is.  4 months to go...

I will start poking my head in once or twice a week starting now, as we slowly ramp up for the new season.  Hope all is well with you and your wife (sorry, I think I forgot her name).


----------



## andyzee (Jul 27, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Good to be back... I was in my summer hybernation. Actually I still am, cursing every day about the heat and how miserable summer is. 4 months to go...
> 
> I will start poking my head in once or twice a week starting now, as we slowly ramp up for the new season. Hope all is well with you and your wife (sorry, I think I forgot her name).


 

All is good with us, how's the ribs? Oh, don't be a stranger.


----------



## koreshot (Jul 27, 2007)

andyzee said:


> All is good with us, how's the ribs? Oh, don't be a stranger.



Ribs are good - been drinking a lot of milk so they are ready to hug more trees this season


----------



## Greg (Jul 27, 2007)

koreshot said:


> Oh great, Highway Star is here.  As if we didn't suffer enough on TGR.
> 
> Mr. HS, you seem to be marvelous at pissing people off at any internet community you go to.  This is sad, cause quite possibly you are a nice, intelligent person that could have lots of good thoughts to share.  I have seen videos of you (assuming it was really you) rocking your race stock skis and I gotta say, other than the slight backseat approach, you are a damn good skier... way better than me at least.
> 
> So whats the problem?  Tone the attitude and ego down a bit and you should be golden.



Maybe we can rehab him. 



koreshot said:


> Good to be back... I was in my summer hybernation.  Actually I still am, cursing every day about the heat and how miserable summer is.  4 months to go...
> 
> I will start poking my head in once or twice a week starting now, as we slowly ramp up for the new season.



There's really no good reason for leaving at all! :angry:

 Welcome back, koreshot! Hope to make some turns with you this season.


----------



## threecy (Jul 27, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> That said, you very ill informed about this situation and the facts on the ground, to the point of blatantly spreading false information.  Don't even attempt to argue with me, I have the backing of some very smart people who are very well informed about this and we are not diluding ourselves about this situation.


Fine, I'll bite.  You have the gall to call me ill informed...one might be able to say that because I'm defending Killington in this thread (though if you read the whole thread, you'll see that I don't endorse all of their actions or the area itself).



Highway Star said:


> - As Tin Woodsman has so adroitly pointed out, Powdr is not investing signifigantly more in the resort compared to years past.  ASC had around $13+ million per year it could spend on capital projects at all 8 resorts, due to their debt agreements.  Read the ASC annual reports.  Killington got a decent bit every year, after the Canyons, Steamboat, and SR. But nowhere near enough.  They tried, even though they had crushing debt.  Perhaps they spent too much capital at the Canyons for questionable reasons, who knows.


No, it isn't investing signficantly more (though one could argue they're investing 50% more than the $2M figure that's been floated around).  Nonetheless, they are investing some money, after only a few months of ownership.  **They have not declared $3M their investment run rate.**  In fact, I doubt they'll only invest $3M in their first calendar year - I bet next off season, which will start within their first year of ownership, they'll announce a more aggressive investment.  If they don't, then things aren't looking good...a slight uptick in investment their first season?  Not going to kill the area.

Also, if you know as much about the industry as you claim do (or the very smart people you know...I know many smart people as well, but I don't let them do my arguing for me - and in an unchecked manner), you'll know that most investment figures are inflated - its more along the lines of $3M OF improvements, not $3M IN improvements - ski areas cut corners but promote the retail cost.



Highway Star said:


> -  What is enough?  As TW says, investing at the book depreciation figure for Killington. That just so happens to be around $8 million per year in '06, per the sales agreement with POWDR/SP.  Instaid, they are going for $3 mil this year, with $3-5mil in coming years.  With that kind of investment, Killington will never recover it's market postion.


I'd suggest you do some research into ski area depreciation.  This is one way in which ski areas are able to show a loss or breakeven season, despite positive cashflow.  Depending upon the depreciation schedule one sets up for a chairlift, for instance, much of it can be essentially written off in only a few years.  Does that mean the chair needs to be replaced?  Not at all.  In fact, with the relative stagnation of ski lift technology (we haven't seen anything as revolutionary as a high speed detachable in decades, and Killington has a bunch of them), only maintenance is required - which is performed in order to keep the lifts in operating (and inspection-passing) condition.  Thus, one can keep an area running in fine shape (I'm not saying Killington is in fine shape, but it's also not in Magic 2002 shape) with an investment of less than the depreciation.



Highway Star said:


> - If you start doing the math, you'll see that Killington is in a pretty big hole with it's upkeep. About $5-6 million short per year for the last 6-8 years.  Or around $30 million dollars, give or take.  They have tons of capacity on the hill, but since the resort is in marginal shape, and not offering the product it used to, they can't get the skier visits to fully utilize it.  They only hit peak capacity on major holiday weekends in February.


Again, see the depreciation comments above.  Killington doesn't need $30 of investment right now, at least as far as I've seen (maybe there are some facilities being held together by duct tape, who knows).  Yes, the ski area is in marginal shape, but a slight upturn in investment isn't going to hurt them.  Again, I doubt $3M is all Killington is going to see in the next few years.  Don't think the people at SP/Powdr are stupid.



Highway Star said:


> - There is no mystery of what needs to be done at Killington.  All the top level ops people were retained during the sale, and they certainly knew what the important things were that needed to be done.  They could have easily poured $5-10 million into the place right off the bat to make it work better.  The list is a mile long.  Maybe $2-3 million into things that people would immediately notice as in improvement to the skiing experience - that helps drive skier visits and make people feel better about paying more for a pass.  Instaid, they simply fired all the top ops people, and are now running around trying to figure out how they are going to actually run the mountain next year.  It's amature hour in the admin building....and it's not even ski season yet.


Welcome to corporate America.  Mergers/acquisitions tend to leave things in shambles.  As such, its not a bad idea to wait a bit before pouring in cash.  They could have easily poured $5-10M into the place?  I don't know how easy it is to just drop $5-10M - that's a lot of money, unless you're independently wealthy.



Highway Star said:


> - Overall, by cutting the top operations people, cutting the ski season and everything that goes with that (ie. SNOWMAKING), marginal investment, cutting lift and lodge services.....there is no way they can drive skier visits while justifying their higher prices.  That means less people will come.  Way less.  Even though they may think they can improve their revenue yields per visit to compensate, it will not be enough to offset the loss in visits.  Overall, if Killington is not providing the product, they simply cannot put 1,000,000+ skier visits on the hill every season - no eastern resort can unless they have a spec-tack-culaar product, at a reasonable price, within reach of NYC.  We've seen this with OKEMO's growth over the pas few years.  Killington/Pico is fundimentally set up to put 1,000,000 to 1,400,000 visits on the mountain each year - if you're not getting that, major cutbacks need to be made to the skiing product (lifts operating, snowmaking/season length), which massively decreases the attractiveness of the product overall....because the mountain just doesn't ski right, especially to the average person.


I don't recall SP/Powdr diclosing LESS snowmaking this coming season.  ASC didn't appear to put as much into it as in the past, so the baseline really isn't set that high.  Nonetheless, if they aren't focussed on building a rediculous base on Superstar, maybe they can distribute that snow elsewhere - and have more trails open with a better base.  If they're not seeing an operating profit (or benefit) late season, that excess snow is a waste of money.



Highway Star said:


> - Want to talk about the ALL4ONE pass?  Fine. Go read the ASC annual reports FIRST.  It was a brilliant yield management tool.  All it did was cut into their discount ticket sales, but helped draw traffic to the ski area, and get people to spend money on other things, while getting people to accept a lower quality product.  Many all4one passes were underutilized.  They ran an operating profit of $8-12+ million at Killington each of the last 4 years, this is reflected in the selling price of the resort, and is more than enough to be sustainable if ASC wasn't taking away all the profits to pay down debt.


Go read the ASC annual reports first?  I'm not sure how often you visit the forum (2005 membership but only a handful of posts), but this has been debated to death in some recent threads.  The All4One pass drove prices down NE-wide and had a lot of negative effects, not worthwhile debating in this thread.

Here's a question - if you claim the operating profit at Killington in recent is a plus, why are you implying the sky is falling by SP/Powdr (essentially) maintaining the status quo in investment?  If you imply its that good, why do you imply its broken to the tune of $30M?



Highway Star said:


> - Think of it like Walmart.  It's a huge store with all sorts of products, that appeals to all segments of the market at reasonable value.  Now, what would happen if you were to cut the size of the store in half, offer half the variety of products...but cut prices by 30%?  What if they let the store get run down and it smelled funny?  People would accept the lack of variety or quailty or environment, and still shop there because of the extreme value.  There might also be other stores in the area, selling better products with better variety, but at the old higher prices still, or even higher.....they would do well because many people would need or want those better products.   Now, what if someone came along and bought Walmart........and suddenly thought that they should be charging more for their products and variety, amounts equal to the nicest stores in the area? What if they cut their variety back even further, and were only open for few a few hours on the weekend?
> 
> What would happen to the mighty Walmart?  Would people continue to shop there?
> 
> Fact is, people are pissed to be paying more at Killington, when it's looking like POWDR is going to do very little to do better than ASC, and very well could do much worse.



I don't quite see the logic in your analogy - I don't see how cutting the top of Ram's Head and the bottom of Sunrise is 50% of Killington's terrain.  Is Killington run down?  Yes.  Will people continue to ski there?  Yes.  Killington's income isn't made soley on season passes - they see a tremendous amount of revenue from day/multi-day ticket buyers.  With a name like Killington, they will continue to see these skiers, many paying full price, for years to come.


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 29, 2007)

Wow, I'm really impressed, you sure showed me.....that you're spending too much time thinking you know these concepts, and yet not actually knowing what's going on.  But hey, everybody is always learning.



threecy said:


> Fine, I'll bite.  You have the gall to call me ill informed...one might be able to say that because I'm defending Killington in this thread (though if you read the whole thread, you'll see that I don't endorse all of their actions or the area itself).
> 
> 
> No, it isn't investing signficantly more (though one could argue they're investing 50% more than the $2M figure that's been floated around).  Nonetheless, they are investing some money, after only a few months of ownership.  **They have not declared $3M their investment run rate.**  In fact, I doubt they'll only invest $3M in their first calendar year - I bet next off season, which will start within their first year of ownership, they'll announce a more aggressive investment.  If they don't, then things aren't looking good...a slight uptick in investment their first season?  Not going to kill the area.


 I assume you're using the term "investment run rate" to describe future capital investments in the ski area in comming business years....for us english speaking common folk.  What do you have to say to this:  

"Under POWDR, we’ll see upwards of 50 percent of the annual EBITDA staying right here and going toward on-mountain improvements – to the tune of $10-15 million over the next three years. So no, things aren’t bad off at all under the new ownership. In fact, we’re all excited to see something come of our hard work rather than watching other ASC resorts parley our good fortune!"

I'm not saying where that came from, but it is very REAL.

But NO, I don't think that is nearly enough money, considering the lack of investment in the previous years and the profits and margin they are going to be reaping - $8-$14M per year, or more.  ASC already sucked Killington dry to pay debts.  What's these guys excuse for only re-investing 30% of their profits.....debt too?.....or is it greed?  Or is it....just "not getting it"?



> Also, if you know as much about the industry as you claim do (or the very smart people you know...I know many smart people as well, but I don't let them do my arguing for me - and in an unchecked manner), you'll know that most investment figures are inflated - its more along the lines of $3M OF improvements, not $3M IN improvements - ski areas cut corners but promote the retail cost.


 Great, so they are actually spending less than $3M?  We should take that as good news?  Sweet.  So, the true dollar figure is internal to the accounting and all that, but we get retail figures quoted to us. NICE. 





> I'd suggest you do some research into ski area depreciation.  This is one way in which ski areas are able to show a loss or breakeven season, despite positive cashflow.  Depending upon the depreciation schedule one sets up for a chairlift, for instance, much of it can be essentially written off in only a few years.  Does that mean the chair needs to be replaced?  Not at all.  In fact, with the relative stagnation of ski lift technology (we haven't seen anything as revolutionary as a high speed detachable in decades, and Killington has a bunch of them), only maintenance is required - which is performed in order to keep the lifts in operating (and inspection-passing) condition.  Thus, one can keep an area running in fine shape (I'm not saying Killington is in fine shape, but it's also not in Magic 2002 shape) with an investment of less than the depreciation.


I suggest you do some more research into the concept of depriciation, PERIOD.  Depriciation is an accounting tool.  To extend the cost of your capital asset purchase over a pre-deterimined period of time.  Every single business uses it to allow reporting of minimal bottom line profit for tax reasons, etc.

There are ski-industry standard rates - for chairlifts, it's a straight division of the capital cost over 30 years.  Other years for trail changes, lodges, other equipment, etc.  

Overall, at Killington, there have been capital purchases made in the past 30 years, that are or were on their books as depriciating at $8M+/year in '06.   Considering that they haven't seen any signifigant investment since '00, that's ALOT.  Tons, and tons, and tons of money was spent at Killington in the 80's and 90's.....and they have the CAPACITY to show for it.......but not the QUALITY OF LIFT LAYOUT.   

Why is this a problem?  If makes Killington the most disfunctional resort in the east......they have all these lifts, but if they can't get enough people on the mountain, they'll only run 30% of them, and the mountain simply doesn't ski right.  They basicly sit there unused for most of the year, and they only fire them up on holidays and super busy saturdays.  Les Otten was building for a 1,400,000 visit MEGA RESORT with K/P connected.  He put in too much capacity, but then Oak Hill pulled the plug on him and skier visits have been in a death spiral ever since.  

On top that, while Killington/Pico may have 9 detachable lifts (counting the skyeship as two, and not counting the snowdon poma), they have FOURTEEN FIXED GRIP CHAIRLIFTS, many of which are quads or a few triples.  Killington does NOT like to run MANY these chairs because they are redundant, but many, many of them have a VERY MATERIAL EFFECT ON THE QUALITY OF THE SKIING PRODUCT.  These will include:

- Canyon Quad
- South Ridge Triple
- Devil's Fiddle Quad (in good snow years or if they make snow on the fiddle)
- Needles Eye Quad (detachable, but redundant and not run often)
- Snowdon Triple
- Little Pico Triple
- Outpost Double

Are you beginning to see a picture here?

And on top of that, you have certain lifts that just plain don't make sense, but are too new to justify taking out or replacing with a HSQ - such as the snowshed doubles, or the snowdon quad.  The NEXT lift to be put in at Killington will be a replacement for the Yan Skyepeak Quad which was put in in 1983ish.

Overall, Killington IS SHRINKING.  The lift capacity will decrease, and hopefully, they can tweak the lift layout so that everything skis better with less capacity.  Actually, a few fast DOUBLE CHAIRS in the right spots would work wonders for them, with some relocated lifts.



> Again, see the depreciation comments above.  Killington doesn't need $30M of investment right now, at least as far as I've seen (maybe there are some facilities being held together by duct tape, who knows).  Yes, the ski area is in marginal shape, but a slight upturn in investment isn't going to hurt them.  Again, I doubt $3M is all Killington is going to see in the next few years.  Don't think the people at SP/Powdr are stupid.


 Stop putting words in my mouth, STRAW MAN.  

STOP!!!!!

OK?

THANK YOU!!!

There are plenty of things Killington could spend $10M on. Choose from the below"

- A raft of Fan guns.  
- An upper mountain lift to the peak/top of K-1 for early/late season skiing.  
- Trail intersection adjustments or grading.  
- SRT replacement/adjustment.  
- Skyepeak quad replacement.  
- Snowdon quad replacement.  
- The interconnect, at a budget price.  
- A summit lodge
- MORE snowmaking fixes
- Misc lift moves and adjustments to reduce capacity while making the mountain ski better. 

MANY of these are things a consultant highlighted last year, and POWDR has been involved since MARCH 2006.  Do you think they had ample time to figure it out?   Don't you think that some of these things need to be done, no matter who runs the mountain, or what direction they are taking it?!

Face facts here dude:  THEY EAT WHAT THEY KILL.



> Welcome to corporate America.  Mergers/acquisitions tend to leave things in shambles.  As such, its not a bad idea to wait a bit before pouring in cash.  They could have easily poured $5-10M into the place?  I don't know how easy it is to just drop $5-10M - that's a lot of money, unless you're independently wealthy.


Shambles? 

Yes, many of us are flat out worried that Killington will be run WORSE than ASC this season....really.

Do you know who own's Killingon?  Really?  Maybe you should go and look.  He is VERY independantly wealthy.  LOOK.

Oh, and don't even START talking to me about corporate America.  You have no idea about me, aside from what I choose to put out here.


> I don't recall SP/Powdr disclosing LESS snowmaking this coming season.  ASC didn't appear to put as much into it as in the past, so the baseline really isn't set that high.  Nonetheless, if they aren't focussed on building a rediculous base on Superstar, maybe they can distribute that snow elsewhere - and have more trails open with a better base.  If they're not seeing an operating profit (or benefit) late season, that excess snow is a waste of money.


 Lord god almightly....how can you talk like this?   

ASC has been cutting costs like mad, but still keeping enough snowmaking to keep more terrain open than the competition......ESPECIALLY IN BAD CONDITIONS.  That costs an insane amount of money.  I just made the estimate in another post that it cost Killington $350,000 to $500,000 in "BIG AIR" snowmaking to open for Thanksgiving last year.  Will POWDR want to pull the trigger on that?  No. 

I'm hearing vague promisies of "mo' betta' snow" for this year at Killington.  That means that they fixed the water pressure probelms and are going to run tower guns more often - good!  Good snow, cheap.......but that means......only when it's COLD.....ie. middle of the season.  

........what about when it's NOT COLD ENOUGH?  Here is where POWDR/KILLINGTON is playing with FIRE.  What if we get a pretty marginal winter, with lots of thaw/freeze, and many snowmaking windows where it only gets down to 26-30 F wet bulb?  LOOK OUT.  Is POWDR going to want to spend the money to go "BIG AIR" and expand terrain in marginal temps, to offer more than the competiton, and drive skier visits?  We'll see, but would not count on it.....really.    



> Go read the ASC annual reports first?  I'm not sure how often you visit the forum (2005 membership but only a handful of posts), but this has been debated to death in some recent threads.  The All4One pass drove prices down NE-wide and had a lot of negative effects, not worthwhile debating in this thread.


 Again, don't read what people spew on the internet about what they THINK the All4One did.  READ THE ANNUAL REPORTS.  Very clearly, ASC was QUITE impressed with they yield management and skier visit driving success of the All4One. 

Please, I'm begging you. 





> Here's a question - if you claim the operating profit at Killington in recent is a plus, why are you implying the sky is falling by SP/Powdr (essentially) maintaining the status quo in investment?  If you imply its that good, why do you imply its broken to the tune of $30M?


  What to you mean I CLAIM?  Read the K/P purchase agreement - this is FACT!  It was $8.2M operating profit in '05-'06, one of the worst years in the past 10.  Skier visits were down, and they had to ask for more money to make snow.  They still turned a decent profit.  The selling price of the resort, $85M, indicates a profit history of $8m-$14m, on a industry standard resort valuation model which says a selling price of equal to 6 to 8 times the yearly operating profit.  If Killington couldn't make any money, they wouldn't have bought it!!!  



> I don't quite see the logic in your analogy - I don't see how cutting the top of Ram's Head and the bottom of Sunrise is 50% of Killington's terrain.  Is Killington run down?  Yes.  Will people continue to ski there?  Yes.  Killington's income isn't made soley on season passes - they see a tremendous amount of revenue from day/multi-day ticket buyers.  With a name like Killington, they will continue to see these skiers, many paying full price, for years to come.



Again, more deceptive gibberish out of you.  

Regarding my walmart analogy - Point being ASC in the last 5-6 years have CUT:

- Terrrain
- Open terrain
- Open Terrain * Time terrain is open
- Season Length
- Quality of food
- Lifts operating
- Snowmaking quality
- Snowmaking quantity........

But they CUT THE PERCIEVED PRICE TOO.

Now.....what is POWDR going to do here?  Increase price, while cutting MORE of the above things?  REALLY?  

Do you have any idea what this is going to do?  Yep, people MAY still come and ski.  MAYBE.  Some of them.  A few.  

****Skier visits are going to fall off a cliff, and it's going to be a bloodbath for the entire local economy.******


----------



## threecy (Jul 29, 2007)

I'm not even going to debate this anymore.  You talk as if you have the knowledge and experience of Tim Mueller or Jay Gamble.  Thing is, nearly everyone I've met with anywhere near that experience doesn't talk with such an egotistical, condescending tone.  You have what many people in the lower rungs of the industry have – some isolated knowledge and a big ego that draws unarguable conclusions, at least in your opinion.  Call me a fool if you want, I’m not going to point out the abundance of holes in your rebuttal.  I'll just politely nod at your conclusions and encourage you to read this thread in 2 years.


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 29, 2007)

Sigh.. HS, never thought I would be reading your term papers on here as well.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 29, 2007)

HS, get yourself a girlfriend, you'll feel so much better


----------



## pepperdawg (Jul 30, 2007)

Newpylong said:


> Sigh.. HS, never thought I would be reading your term papers on here as well.



Sigh seconded....


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 30, 2007)

threecy said:


> I'm not even going to debate this anymore.  You talk as if you have the knowledge and experience of Tim Mueller or Jay Gamble.  Thing is, nearly everyone I've met with anywhere near that experience doesn't talk with such an egotistical, condescending tone.  You have what many people in the lower rungs of the industry have – some isolated knowledge and a big ego that draws unarguable conclusions, at least in your opinion.  Call me a fool if you want, I’m not going to point out the abundance of holes in your rebuttal.  I'll just politely nod at your conclusions and encourage you to read this thread in 2 years.



Awesome.....so you don't even have a comeback.  I just blew you out of the water, and you haven't come down yet.

Let me tell you a couple things. 

- People in the industry aren't always right.  They are too busy running their business to see the macro picture, including their market.  In fact, they may be very, very wrong sometimes....and yet will practice intense self dilusion.  You're just ticked that I've called you out on your baseless statements.

- I've met and skied with "Tin Woodsman".  He is a very astute business man and an avid skier.  He does not practice self dilusion.  Take his advice.  I also take the advice of many other good men and women.

- Your Killington privilages have been revoked.  I will be here at every turn, ready with more info and a more convincing analysis.  Everybody else can choose who to believe.  I would suggest that you be more thoughtful and convincing in the future.....and more correct, if you choose to debate me.

- Sorry for being condescending towards you - fact is, I have read many of your posts on this matter, and have little respect for you in this subject area.  I've read some of your other non-Killington threads here and you seem like a decent guy.  You just don't have as much info as you should, and you aren't making valid analysis.  Do you even ski at Killington?

- I am in a very honest and intense closed feedback loop on my personality, analysis, and actions.  Underestimate me at your own peril.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

HS, so you're not going to try this sex with another person thing?


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> HS, so you're not going to try this sex with another person thing?



I'm dating someone.  

Cut the crap, Andy.....this isn't k-zone, and we're on the same side here.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> I'm dating someone.
> 
> Cut the crap, Andy.....this isn't k-zone, and we're on the same side here.


 
Gee, didn't know there were sides.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> Awesome.....so you don't even have a comeback.  I just blew you out of the water, and you haven't come down yet.



Just a reminder that in here, we don't talk to folks like that in here....

Thanks.  

TB


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> Awesome.....so you don't even have a comeback.  I just blew you out of the water, and you haven't come down yet.
> 
> Let me tell you a couple things.
> 
> ...


I think I just got sick............uke:


----------



## 2knees (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> - I am in a very honest and intense closed feedback loop on my personality, analysis, and actions.  Underestimate me at your own peril.




stop taking yourself so seriously.  You sound ridiculous.


----------



## threecy (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> Awesome.....so you don't even have a comeback.  I just blew you out of the water, and you haven't come down yet.



I don't have a comeback because I said I'm not going to bother debating you on this anymore.  Say what you want about it, I don't really care.  There's an old saying in the industry, "I've probably forgotten more about the ski industry than you know."  Cheers.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

2knees said:


> stop taking yourself so seriously. You sound ridiculous.


 
BINGO!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2007)

Folks, let's get back on track here.  Back to the topic at hand please....


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Folks, let's get back on track here. Back to the topic at hand please....


 

I was thinking of buying the Pico only pass, but now I'm leaning towards the Killinton Blackout pass. Guess I better make up my mind by tomorrow


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> I was thinking of buying the Pico only pass, but now I'm leaning towards the Killinton Blackout pass. Guess I better make up my mind by tomorrow


I just bought two.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

ALLSKIING said:


> I just bought two.


 

The black outs?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> I was thinking of buying the Pico only pass, but now I'm leaning towards the Killinton Blackout pass. Guess I better make up my mind by tomorrow




And better make sure there are no hidden fees :wink:  Oh wait--been there, done that.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> The black outs?


Yep.


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

ALLSKIING said:


> I just bought two.


 
That's all I needed to hear, just ordered mine


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> That's all I needed to hear, just ordered mine



I did not know I had that kind of infulence..:razz:


----------



## andyzee (Jul 30, 2007)

ALLSKIING said:


> I did not know I had that kind of infulence..:razz:


 
Next question, you going to Utah with us? :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 30, 2007)

So you guys have two K-mart blackout passes?  Sweet.....

You know what I might have done?  Offered the K-Mart blackout pass with either access to Pico on holidays, or a $20 lift ticket there.  Maybe that would have quelled criticism.


----------



## ALLSKIING (Jul 30, 2007)

andyzee said:


> Next question, you going to Utah with us? :lol:



:smash:


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 30, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Just a reminder that in here, we don't talk to folks like that in here....
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> TB



Sorry, not a probelm.


----------



## Highway Star (Jul 30, 2007)

threecy said:


> I don't have a comeback because I said I'm not going to bother debating you on this anymore.  Say what you want about it, I don't really care.  There's an old saying in the industry, "I've probably forgotten more about the ski industry than you know."  Cheers.



Sounds quite clearly like you've lost the debate.  

Better luck next time.


----------



## Vortex (Jul 30, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> Sounds quite clearly like you've lost the debate.
> 
> Better luck next time.



Ya just how I read it. :dunce::wink:



You add some interaction. Just keep it constructive.

Maybe after a few weeks you will see the vibe that this places brings.  Your 1st week or so you have missed the point.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 1, 2007)

I went on vacation at a good time, didn't I?


----------



## PowderDeprived (Aug 5, 2007)

What if your day off from work is one of the days they are closed, are you going to buy a Pico Pass now?

I think it is a lousy decision.

I think the biggest thing is that it would affect pass sales.

That and with the shortened seasons at both areas, the snowmaking quality will be bull.   I will bet the thin cover signs will start going up 3 days into the first thaw in march, and at Killington, they will be down to the bare bones trails by the begining of April.

Sounds like they will just run and gun to get things opened up by Christmas and blow a few feet onto Superstar.


----------



## bobbutts (Aug 5, 2007)

Highway Star said:


> Sounds quite clearly like you've lost the debate.
> 
> Better luck next time.






threecy said:


> "I've probably forgotten more about the ski industry than you know."  Cheers.



It does make you look bad to enter the debate and then bow out with that bs quote no matter who your opponent is and what they said

It was a healthy debate until you started losing and then you quit, hiding behind someone else's smug annoying quote.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2007)

bobbutts said:


> It does make you look bad to enter the debate and then bow out with that bs quote no matter who your opponent is and what they said
> 
> It was a healthy debate until you started losing and then you quit, hiding behind someone else's smug annoying quote.



The debate was over for me when the tone was changed from a civil debate to mudslinging in the last few pages.  I wouldn't attribute that quote to any one person - it's actually used quite a lot, and relevant to the transformation of the debate to a gutter conversation.


----------



## bobbutts (Aug 5, 2007)

threecy said:


> The debate was over for me when the tone was changed from a civil debate to mudslinging in the last few pages.  I wouldn't attribute that quote to any one person - it's actually used quite a lot, and relevant to the transformation of the debate to a gutter conversation.



I read it again, and HS always starts each rebuttal with a :flame:

since I'm not the one it's burning I just skim over those.  Can see how it could seem worthless to continue engaging in that situation.  However some of it is valid and you should have been prepared to finish when you started.  Did you not know who HS was prior to this debate?


----------



## snowman (Aug 5, 2007)

threecy said:


> The debate was over for me when the tone was changed from a civil debate to mudslinging in the last few pages.  I wouldn't attribute that quote to any one person - it's actually used quite a lot, and relevant to the transformation of the debate to a gutter conversation.



I'm with Threecy. I just read the last few pages of this, but Highway Star is treating this like it's some sort of competition for who can create the longest post by re-hashing facts everyone already knows. I also disagree with his statement that you will see lift capacity decrease at K. You will see less lifts, but not less capacity. The future of K will be HS 6 packs and quads in high traffic areas replacing 2 other antiquated lifts. Less lifts, the same or more capacity. It's been 20 years since I last skied K and I think the only new lifts they've built since then are the K1 and K2. Sad! A major resort like K needs to be treated like an amusement park. You need to come with a new lift EVERY winter to keep up interest and to keep your lift infrastructure from crumbling all at once. Whistler rarely goes a year without coming with a new lift. Considering K is almost at the point where the whole lift infrastructure is ready to crumble it will be easy to implement the same kind of program and not run out of lifts to replace for the next 15 years.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2007)

bobbutts said:


> I read it again, and HS always starts each rebuttal with a :flame:
> 
> since I'm not the one it's burning I just skim over those.  Can see how it could seem worthless to continue engaging in that situation.  However some of it is valid and you should have been prepared to finish when you started.  Did you not know who HS was prior to this debate?



I did not know who he was before he joined in (after the debate was basically done) - all I knew was he had a signup date from a few years ago and basically zero posts to go along with it until he started posting like crazy over the period of a few days.  I was and am prepared to finish it to an extent - most of what can be said in a public forum is out there in the 30 something pages of the thread.  It does, however, get to the point where a lot of what I need to add can't be put out in a public forum with my username tagged to it.  That, coupled with the type of poster he appears to be, led me to grin and bow out.  My stance is fairly simple - I do not like to ski Killington, I do not necessarily endorse SP/Powdr's decisions, but I think they can be defended and also that people are big-air-jumping to conclusions before there's even a season of new ownership in place.

A further debate on this topic, without the flaming and emotionally typed posts, would certainly be interesting, but that's probably more along the lines of an industry-only forum of some type.


----------



## bobbutts (Aug 5, 2007)

nice reply.  debate is closed for me too now
now you know.. lol


----------



## snowman (Aug 5, 2007)

threecy said:


> I
> A further debate on this topic, without the flaming and emotionally typed posts, would certainly be interesting, but that's probably more along the lines of an industry-only forum of some type.



Hmmmm, Did you go to the Skip King school of Skip King or something? That is SO Skip King I'm not sure now that you're not really Skip King in disguise! :wink:


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 5, 2007)

@Snowman, the lift situation is not terrible at K, it is actually fairly well-designed, and can allow you to get from one side to the other with only one or two lifts, and while needing matinence very badly, the lifts themselves (for the most part) are appropriate for the area they are serving.

They've got two modern gondi's, and a good number of HS lifts. (Snowshed, Superstar, Needle's Eye, Rams Head).

There are couple problems with the current set-up. 

First, Snowdon needs a high-speed lift, a HSQ would fine in my opinion, the quad is a 10 minute ride without stopping, and they can't run it faster. (I would like to see the Triple and Poma stay in place.)

Secondly, the Skye Peak Quad needs to be replaced desperatly. A HSQ would be fine here as well, while a 6-pack would mean there will never be any lines, it will be insane on Skye Peak with the Gondi, and three HSQ's that all feed at least a portion of their traffic onto it.

Third: There are multiple unnecessary lifts on the mountain right now, the DF Quad is run one or two times a year, and it's purpose is long gone. (Originally, it had a lot of traffic coming off sunrise). The Snowshed Doubles aren't run very often, and beginners aren't good at loading fixed-grip double chairs.

Fourth, the South Ridge Triple should be extended somehow up to the peak, which would make it more sense to run more often, and would allow badly needed traffic to the peak lodge.


Solution:

Rip out the Snowshed HSQ and replace it with a 6-pack, to make the doubles unnecessary to have. Remove the doubles. Put the Snowshed HSQ on Snowdon.

Remove the DF Quad at the same time as you buy a new HSQ for Skye Peak.

Pat yourself on the back, you solved most of the lift problems at K, and reduced the number of lifts at K by three, and they are now free for whatever purpose you may have for them.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2007)

snowman said:


> Hmmmm, Did you go to the Skip King school of Skip King or something? That is SO Skip King I'm not sure now that you're not really Skip King in disguise! :wink:



Who's Skip King?


----------



## snowman (Aug 5, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> @Snowman, the lift situation is not terrible at K, it is actually fairly well-designed, and can allow you to get from one side to the other with only one or two lifts, and while needing matinence very badly, the lifts themselves (for the most part) are appropriate for the area they are serving.
> 
> They've got two modern gondi's, and a good number of HS lifts. (Snowshed, Superstar, Needle's Eye, Rams Head).
> 
> ...




You essentially just said what I said, you just used more words. I was basically saying some lifts can likely go, period, because they existed in a pre-high speed world to increase capacity and ease lines. Some other lifts can likely be improved by changing their lines a little on replacement. I also said this isn't a 1 year 15 lift project, this is a 15 year, 15 lift project, replacing the worst lifts first. By the time 10 years are up all of the Yan semi-rehabed HS quads are going to be spitting bolts (requiring replacement) so they will have to go too. Hopefully skier visits will be back up by then requiring the 6 packs if the terrain will withstand the skiers. It doesn't hurt to have a little excess capacity at a resort like K. In the new lift schematic with less lifts you will need it if a major lift goes down on a major weekend. If you have them all up and running you can just set a operater limit on rope speed to limit the capacity to the summit and save some power.


----------



## snowman (Aug 5, 2007)

threecy said:


> Who's Skip King?



You're kidding, right? :-o


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 5, 2007)

bobbutts said:


> I read it again, and HS always starts each rebuttal with a :flame:



That's right.  This is why we are going to talk about something else...


----------



## snowman (Aug 5, 2007)

Cough. There! Now this thread has more posts than days of the year!


----------



## Zand (Aug 6, 2007)

I think this is the first time in my entire life that I've started a successful thread on any board. Cool. And now we have more posts than days in a leap year.


----------



## snowman (Aug 6, 2007)

Zand said:


> I think this is the first time in my entire life that I've started a successful thread on any board. Cool. And now we have more posts than days in a leap year.




LOL! cough cough


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 6, 2007)

Very good ideas there Miller. Never even thought about reconfiguring Snowshed at all.


----------



## snowman (Aug 6, 2007)

millerm277;175633
Solution:

Rip out the Snowshed HSQ and replace it with a 6-pack said:
			
		

> Actually, there is a slight problem with that plan. 6 pack in snowshed and remove the HS quad and Doubles = yes. I'd also pick the best line using the fact you now only 1 lift. It would also allow them to come with a new "marque" lift at a relatively low cost as it would not need to be anywhere near the HP of anyone elses 6 pack to scale the mountain and I think the run is pretty short. This is where you run into problems moving the former high speed from there. It won't have the horse power, or appropriate towers for Snowdon making it next to useless for that cause. There's also the fact that I think it is a Yan (not sure how old it is) and anyone who would re-install a Yan is nuts.


----------



## threecy (Aug 6, 2007)

snowman said:


> There's also the fact that I think it is a Yan (not sure how old it is) and anyone who would re-install a Yan is nuts.



Not to defend Yan, but that's not really a fair statement - since the problem Yans have been modified, the only real issues wit reinstalls involve fixed grip lifts using chain counterweights.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> Not to defend Yan, but that's not really a fair statement - since the problem Yans have been modified, the only real issues wit reinstalls involve fixed grip lifts using chain counterweights.




They're like MD-80's though. MD-80's are known for falling from the sky in death spirals from elevator screw problems. The problem has been fixed, but given the choice of an MD-80 or any other plane, no one choses to fly on or pilot one. Also, it being a Yan automatically means it's damn near older than you, so it should be replaced just for that reason regardless of the make. It's poor business logic to re-fit and re-install a lift with 60-75% of it's life span gone. So, in addition to needing a new base terminal with a bigger motor, you need new towers to scale the different terrain, and the haul rope would be ready for replacement. The only thing you're really left with is a old top terminal and a bunch of chairs with modified grips that are getting on the age where they need metal fatigue inspections. I think it would actually cost them less to sell it as-is to some sucker with an even lower vert and run that can baby it and dump the money into a new unit. They could then advertise a NEW lift as opposed to a moved lift (even if not much of it is left) which is worth a lot of $$$ in itself.

P.S. Did you figure out who the Skipper is yet? :razz:


----------



## threecy (Aug 7, 2007)

snowman said:


> They're like MD-80's though. MD-80's are known for falling from the sky in death spirals from elevator screw problems. The problem has been fixed, but given the choice of an MD-80 or any other plane, no one choses to fly on or pilot one. Also, it being a Yan automatically means it's damn near older than you, so it should be replaced just for that reason regardless of the make. It's poor business logic to re-fit and re-install a lift with 60-75% of it's life span gone. So, in addition to needing a new base terminal with a bigger motor, you need new towers to scale the different terrain, and the haul rope would be ready for replacement. The only thing you're really left with is a old top terminal and a bunch of chairs with modified grips that are getting on the age where they need metal fatigue inspections. I think it would actually cost them less to sell it as-is to some sucker with an even lower vert and run that can baby it and dump the money into a new unit. They could then advertise a NEW lift as opposed to a moved lift (even if not much of it is left) which is worth a lot of $$$ in itself.
> 
> P.S. Did you figure out who the Skipper is yet? :razz:



I will conceed that high speed quads aren't often reinstalled (especially Yans), but a reinstalled lift will be fine for years, as problem spots that may have existed are cleaned up.  Most skiers don't know a Yan from a wicket, so the MD-80 comparison doesn't really ring true.  I should also clarify that I'm not talking about Snowshed in particular, since that lift has so little vertical - rather, Yans in general.  And no, you don't have to buy new towers for a new location - very few new towers if any are needed for a reinstall, unless the whole lift was a direct insert vs. bolted (a lot of Yans are poured, but some are bolted also).


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 7, 2007)

Killington is well known in the past for making some interesting frankinlifts as chairlift.org describes them, and I would guess they could probably make it work.

The current Snowdon lift is using a Poma top drive and chairs, a Yan bottom terminal, and modified old towers from an former lift.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

"It's ALIVE!"

I see these threads have taken on a life of their own. And the quality of discussion has taken only momentary dips in relevance.

Good stuff. I really hate it when work takes away from my online discussion time.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2007)

I agree, Jim.  Back on a good discussion...very good.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

I didn't realize how old alot of Killington's lifts are. I never really gave it alot of thought. If I had it would have dawned on me that this is just another area that ASC neglected for years. So of course the lifts all need work.

So now I realize more fully the demands by Killington regulars that more investment is needed. And I'm sure POWDR knew what they were getting into regarding the infrastructure. 

So I wonder what the long term plan looks like. At this point in my education in this matter, I have to think that long term means nothing longer than 3-5 years out. Tough.


----------



## threecy (Aug 7, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I didn't realize how old alot of Killington's lifts are. I never really gave it alot of thought. If I had it would have dawned on me that this is just another area that ASC neglected for years. So of course the lifts all need work.
> 
> So now I realize more fully the demands by Killington regulars that more investment is needed. And I'm sure POWDR knew what they were getting into regarding the infrastructure.
> 
> So I wonder what the long term plan looks like. At this point in my education in this matter, I have to think that long term means nothing longer than 3-5 years out. Tough.



Their lifts are old, but one thing to consider is that lift technology is also old - look at a mid 80s fixed grip and compare it to a 2006 - while there are certainly advances in the computer systems, much of the design is consistent.  Lifts are mainly replaced due to bad location, obsolete design (ie lattice Muellers with power tower spacing, old lifts without overhead drives, lifts with AC drives, etc.), or lack of capacity.  I'd argue for the first and the last in that statement at Killington, but in reality most of their lifts should be able to continue for years to come with adequate maintenance.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> Their lifts are old, but one thing to consider is that lift technology is also old - look at a mid 80s fixed grip and compare it to a 2006 - while there are certainly advances in the computer systems, much of the design is consistent.  Lifts are mainly replaced due to bad location, obsolete design (ie lattice Muellers with power tower spacing, old lifts without overhead drives, lifts with AC drives, etc.), or lack of capacity.  I'd argue for the first and the last in that statement at Killington, but in reality most of their lifts should be able to continue for years to come with adequate maintenance.



Agreed, we need look no further than MRG...refurbishing a 50 year old single lift.

I'm thinking that a few lift realignments might be coming in the near future. I'm sure the maintenance and relocations cost money. And I have to assume that it's in the budget somewhere at some time.

I would think that at some point before the season gets much nearer that POWDR will start to detail what they will do for the coming season to some degree. I am very surprised at this point how mum they are, although they do have a very tough crowd to please.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2007)

Mum is the word.   But why?  Probably because Killington-Pico is such a HUGE place and is tough to run.  They probably have to account for everything, do inspections, make plans, etc.  Now ASC probably did some of that for them in the closing (final accounting, etc.), but knowing ASC POWDR and SP Lands are probably double-checking everything and "discovering" other problems.  

Killington regulars who :argue: need to remember that their relationship with the mountain and their knowledge is much longer than that of SP Land and POWDR, who just stepped in the door in February 2007.  So it will take some time to "catch up" on certain things....


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Mum is the word.   But why?  Probably because Killington-Pico is such a HUGE place and is tough to run.  They probably have to account for everything, do inspections, make plans, etc.  Now ASC probably did some of that for them in the closing (final accounting, etc.), but knowing ASC POWDR and SP Lands are probably double-checking everything and "discovering" other problems.
> 
> Killington regulars who :argue: need to remember that their relationship with the mountain and their knowledge is much longer than that of SP Land and POWDR, who just stepped in the door in February 2007.  So it will take some time to "catch up" on certain things....



Good point...if they trusted ASC at all during the sale, that must have evaporated with the lifetime pass issue. POWDR is smart if they are going over everything with a fine tooth comb.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2007)

And also I think there is apprehension on the part of the K Community because this is the first time (probably ever) that Killington is NOT a public company and is privately held.  This equals less disclosure as to how the business is operating, etc.  

Now IIRC Killington MAY have been privately held by LBO from 1996-1997 before ASC went public....


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 7, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> Killington regulars who :argue: need to remember that their relationship with the mountain and their knowledge is much longer than that of SP Land and POWDR, who just stepped in the door in February 2007.  So it will take some time to "catch up" on certain things....



That is certainly true, which in a way makes it more painful for us to watch, because most of us know how some of their recent decisions are likely to work out, and we also remember when the mountain was in better shape and was making money with a season that went until June...


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> I will conceed that high speed quads aren't often reinstalled (especially Yans), but a reinstalled lift will be fine for years, as problem spots that may have existed are cleaned up.  Most skiers don't know a Yan from a wicket, so the MD-80 comparison doesn't really ring true.  I should also clarify that I'm not talking about Snowshed in particular, since that lift has so little vertical - rather, Yans in general.  And no, you don't have to buy new towers for a new location - very few new towers if any are needed for a reinstall, unless the whole lift was a direct insert vs. bolted (a lot of Yans are poured, but some are bolted also).



I think it was a really good comparison, because I'd say an equal percentage users don't know the difference between and MD-80 and a 777. HOWEVER, it only takes a few knowing and a conversation with a person on the seat next to you who does know, on either, to make you aware that this is one lift/plane you'ld rather not be on. Someone else here mentioned it is mess of parts from various manufacturers anyway and the towers pre-date the Yan, meaning they must be 40 years old. We have a 20 year old fixed grip doppi at our area. It sure doesn't seem like it's 20 years old, and I'd have to say it's pretty much identical to what doppi would install new now. I'd re-install that somewhere. However, the Yan is much more complicated, looks older and is a lift designed by a company that is out of business. It's also been monkeyed around with by everyone and their dog. You also keep ignoring the fact that you can't take a lift with no vertical and dump it on a much greater pitch because the drive doesn't have the HP to make it perform either. The drive terminal is the most major expense, if you need to replace that, and the rest of what you've got is mis-matched crap, you need to replace it. Sell it to some sucker and count your blessings I say.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

snowman said:


> Sell it to some sucker and count your blessings I say.



I have a funny feeling that a few ASC principles thought that way too.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

JimG. said:


> I have a funny feeling that a few ASC principles thought that way too.



Ha ha ha ha ha. So true! Now I'm saying sell the bits and pieces to a sucker even lower in the food chain :razz:


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2007)

Yan lifts, for the most part, now have become Poma-Leitners...at least the HSQ's that is.  S-K-I was into Yan fixed grips.  Something was said that they used to use a chain for the tensioning system?  How did that work?  :blink:


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 7, 2007)

@Snowman, many of the lifts at Killington are mismatched, as a result of modifications over the years, and creating lifts out of spare parts they have....it's worked pretty well for them. The only lifts that currently have any major problems are the Glades/North Ridge triple (they were leaving every 5th chair empty for a good part of this year), and maybe the SS Quad, as it seems to have mechanical problems often.

Actually, it appears that the Snowshed lift is 800hp according to the 1987 lifts construction survey (http://www.skilifts.org/install_na1987.htm), which is the same as the Superstar Quad (About the same vertical), so it would not need to be modified/replaced if you were to put it on Snowdon.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 7, 2007)

OK, I think I see what people were saying about chain tensioning systems.  From Skilifts.org, a picture of the Skye Peak Quad base terminal:







And it must be interesting to place a tower into a concrete foundation rather than bolting it into place...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> Their lifts are old, but one thing to consider is that lift technology is also old - look at a mid 80s fixed grip and compare it to a 2006 - while there are certainly advances in the computer systems, much of the design is consistent.  Lifts are mainly replaced due to bad location, obsolete design (ie lattice Muellers with power tower spacing, old lifts without overhead drives, lifts with AC drives, etc.), or lack of capacity.  I'd argue for the first and the last in that statement at Killington, but in reality most of their lifts should be able to continue for years to come with adequate maintenance.



threecy - 

Nobody (perhaps with the exception of you) has stated or implied that a massive overhaul of the lift network at K is necessary.  IMO, there are three lifts that really fall into the categories of need you named:  Skye Peak Quad, Snowdon Triple (or quad), and South Ridge.  The first is the key lift connecting K Basin to the Falls Brook Basin (with Bear Mtn, South Ridge, south face of Skye Peak and the rump of NEK).  It is old and long and in desperate need of an upgrade.  I'd leave it to POWDR to determine whether to replace with a HSQ or a HSS.  Snowdon Triple is old, but it isn't that long and Snowdon is already crowded given the decent cruising terain there.  You probably want to upgrade the quad to a detatchable to shorten the ride and provide an attractive alternative to the always crowded K-1 without adding any incremental lift capacity to that area.  South Ridge is just a funky relic at this point.  this is a shame b/c not only does that area have great terrain, it is high elevation (all aobe 3000'), gets decent sun, and potentially provides you with another means to access K-Peak.  Moreover, the Bear to South Ridge combo enables you to go bottom to top w/o the zoo that is the K-Basin side.

We've already discussed K's ageing snowmaking infrastructure and base lodge facilities ad nauseum here.  My guess is that when you total everythign up, before even considering the capital for the Pico Interconnect, you are probably looking at close to $40-50MM of on-mountain improvements just to get back to the standard of where most of its competitors are today in terms of physical plant.  For a place the size of K, you need to invest at least $5MM/year just to stay in the same place.  By no means should they seek to close even half that gap in a single year but tackling it in $3MM increments doesn't get it done - you only slow the rate at which you fall behind your competitors.

It seems that you're hinting that you have inside knowledge of POWDR's long term plans for K/Pico.  If those plans include all or most of the investments discussed here in this thread, then it's not surprising you would take the position you have.  Truth be told, your general observations about depreciation and not investing so much so quick don't make much sense from a business perspective.  Doesn't matter how much of an insider you are, that was nonsense in any language.  Regardless, it is fair to point out that POWDR's PR stumbles thus far have been compounded by a less than overwhelming capital plan for the year.  Moreover, in light of the backlog of capital needs, the "eat what you kill" approach they've announced doesn't hold out much hope for a turnaround in the near to medium term.  So really the only thing that we who are skeptical of POWDR's plans have to point us in another direction is your inside information, which you can't/won't reveal.  As such, you should understand the level of skepticism about K's future.

Edit:  Oops, forgot to mention the dangerous relics like the Glades Triple.  That's got to go sooner rather than later as well, unless POWDR wants to kill what they eat.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> @Snowman, many of the lifts at Killington are mismatched, as a result of modifications over the years, and creating lifts out of spare parts they have....it's worked pretty well for them. The only lifts that currently have any major problems are the Glades/North Ridge triple (they were leaving every 5th chair empty for a good part of this year), and maybe the SS Quad, as it seems to have mechanical problems often.
> 
> Actually, it appears that the Snowshed lift is 800hp according to the 1987 lifts construction survey (http://www.skilifts.org/install_na1987.htm), which is the same as the Superstar Quad (About the same vertical), so it would not need to be modified/replaced if you were to put it on Snowdon.



Ha ha ha ha ha. That says it all right there. Would you want to get on a lift that they're not allowed to load all the chairs on?!?! Lordy! My point was 2 fold. 1. Yes, I know there is a lot of crap in the way of lift engineering at K. 2. The crap is only going to get worse in the years to come and they need to start on a lift replacement program NOW, so that they don't suddenly find themselves 8 years from now with 6 lifts they can't get certified all at the same time. My point was you can make gold out of that situation by having a shiny new lift to advertise every year. A shiny new lift every year could bring them in as much additional revenue as the thing costs. It's not just about rehabing or moving lifts to get people from A to B. It's about the ADVERTISING VALUE. They need to take a page from the amusement park industry or sucessfull resorts like Whistler that build a new lift every winter and get with the program of success. The only reason the amusement park industry isn't raking it in is their shiny new "lifts" unfortunately cost $20-$30 million dollars. Ski lifts (chairs) $1-$5. In addition to the damn things paying for themselves in advertising value/extra revenue in year one alone, you have a piece of equipment that isn't going to break down on MLK weekend, you have a new capital cost you can write down, you have a much lower chance of being on the evening news for having some sort of loaded lift failure/disaster and your insurance is going to drop. Re-fitted or not, you can't tell me they aren't paying an insurance premium for having Yan lifts. The insurance industry is surely milking that for all it's worth. They NEVER forget.

P.S. Someone else here said that the drive has been replaced by a Poma. That spec was likely the one for the original yan drive. Anyone know how new or what HP the poma drive is? Was it just the drive or the whole terminal? If the whole to terminal is a newer poma terminal with 800 + HP, well then they could maybe buy the rest of the lift to go with it, re-use it and pass it off as new if need be. I still think they would be better off finding someone to buy the thing as a complete unit and going new-new though.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

thetrailboss said:


> OK, I think I see what people were saying about chain tensioning systems.  From Skilifts.org, a picture of the Skye Peak Quad base terminal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I can see the dangers in that. Most modern chairlifts are tensioned with hydraulic rams for a reason.


----------



## millerm277 (Aug 7, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Nobody (perhaps with the exception of you) has stated or implied that a massive overhaul of the lift network at K is necessary.  IMO, there are three lifts that really fall into the categories of need you named:  Skye Peak Quad, Snowdon Triple (or quad), and South Ridge.  The first is the key lift connecting K Basin to the Falls Brook Basin (with Bear Mtn, South Ridge, south face of Skye Peak and the rump of NEK).  It is old and long and in desperate need of an upgrade.  I'd leave it to POWDR to determine whether to replace with a HSQ or a HSS.  Snowdon Triple is old, but it isn't that long and Snowdon is already crowded given the decent cruising terain there.  You probably want to upgrade the quad to a detatchable to shorten the ride and provide an attractive alternative to the always crowded K-1.  South Ridge is just a funky relic at this point.  this is a shame b/c not only does that area have great terrain, it is high elevation (all aobe 3000'), gets decent sun, and potentially provides you with another means to access K-Peak.  Moreover, the Bear to South Ridge combo enables you to go bottom to top w/o the zoo that is the K-Basin side.



The South Ridge Triple doesn't really need to be replaced (unless that's required to extend it to the peak). Mechanically, it's in good shape, and a new lift would probably only shave around 30secs to a minute off the ride. It's already very useful because Home Run allows it to get to anywhere. It needs to be run and painted, and extending it to the peak would be a good idea. In order for it to get traffic to make it worthwhile to run, Lower Pipe Dream needs to have the snowmaking used, and the entrance to it needs to be a bit clearer. Do not ever put snowmaking on the other South Ridge trails, it'd ruin them.

Skye Peak Quad is the most important lift to be replaced, and it has been mentioned as the highest priority in the past. However, something will need to be done about the way traffic flows up there, as it will be even more insane on Skyelark with the traffic from that as well.

Snowdon Quad needs a replacement, but you have to be careful, because Great Northern and the runs below can't even handle the traffic on them currently.



> We've already discussed K's ageing snowmaking infrastructure and base lodge facilities ad nauseum here.  My guess is that when you total everythign up, before even considering the capital for the Pico Interconnect, you are probably looking at close to $40-50MM of on-mountain improvements just to get back to the standard of where most of its competitors are today in terms of physical plant.  For a place the size of K, you need to invest at least $5MM/year just to stay in the same place.  By no means should they seek to close even half that gap in a single year but tackling it in $3MM increments doesn't get it done - you only slow the rate at which you fall behind your competitors.



Exactly what I've said before...they may be fixing things, but other mountains are adding new....

If they can get the snowmaking working properly, it's pretty powerful (although still too little than they need for this size mountain), although the portable guns they tend to use are ridiculously inefficient in the marginal conditions they often need to make snow in, and the low-e's don't work at those temps. K could really use fan guns on the lower elevations.

I think their infrastructure may be in worse shape than people realize, consider the following.

-The pipe on lower superstar last year had a big leak at the beginning of the season, and they couldn't make snow on it for a long time.

-They abandoned the pipes (rather than repairing them) on Valley Plunge last year, and stopped labeling it as having snowmaking and I wouldn't be shocked if some of the pipes in a few other portions of the mountain aren't functional.

-The tower guns were never run (to my knowledge), last season, even though they are much more efficient....has to be some reason for that.


----------



## threecy (Aug 7, 2007)

I'm not going to debate Killington in this thread, as I said earlier, and again, I wasn't endorsing a relocation of the Snowshed lift to Snowdon.  What I was saying is that many of the lifts I have seen at Killington that would be considered 'old' are indeed reusable.  When a lift is reinstalled, it's gone through top to bottom - anything iffy is replaced.  The main concern with the fixed grip Yans again is the chain tensioning - it might be possible to modify that with a counterweight, but otherwise you're talking a drive terminal replacement (which basically means you're just getting some chairs and towers).

In terms of poured towers, its more common than you think - if you're hiking ski areas in the summer, take a look - often times you'll have some bolted and some poured (usually depends upon the topography/ledge/tower types).

Riblet lifts tend to have another variation of this - a smaller portion of 'pipe' is poured into the footing, then the actual tower is bolted to that segment.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 7, 2007)

millerm277 said:


> The South Ridge Triple doesn't really need to be replaced (unless that's required to extend it to the peak). Mechanically, it's in good shape, and a new lift would probably only shave around 30secs to a minute off the ride. It's already very useful because Home Run allows it to get to anywhere. It needs to be run and painted, and extending it to the peak would be a good idea. In order for it to get traffic to make it worthwhile to run, Lower Pipe Dream needs to have the snowmaking used, and the entrance to it needs to be a bit clearer. Do not ever put snowmaking on the other South Ridge trails, it'd ruin them.



Good point.  South Ridge was an afterthought under ASC ownership, so it was a viscious circle in terms of lift neglect and associated neglect of the trail system that feeds it.  I would straighten that lift so people could actually see the good terrain in that area (people ski what they see under the lift - take that to the bank) and extend it towards the Peak if possible, though that might not be value added given the access afforded by Home Run.  Regardless, for a variety of reasons, that terrain pod is dramatically underutilized - something K can't afford given the crowding elsewhere.  This is especially acute b/c South Ridge has great cruising and intermediate terrain.  



> Skye Peak Quad is the most important lift to be replaced, and it has been mentioned as the highest priority in the past. However, something will need to be done about the way traffic flows up there, as it will be even more insane on Skyelark with the traffic from that as well.


If I were them I'd simply switch that lift to a HSQ to avoid exacerbating the crowd problems in that area.  It's insane already as you point out.  



> Snowdon Quad needs a replacement, but you have to be careful, because Great Northern and the runs below can't even handle the traffic on them currently.


Which is why I suggested replacing it with a HSQ to retain the same capacity.  The problem with that lift isn't capacity.  Rather, it's the length of the ride and its inability to draw skiers away from K-1 b/c it's "only" a fixed grip chair.




> If they can get the snowmaking working properly, it's pretty powerful (although still too little than they need for this size mountain), although the portable guns they tend to use are ridiculously inefficient in the marginal conditions they often need to make snow in, and the low-e's don't work at those temps. K could really use fan guns on the lower elevations.
> 
> I think their infrastructure may be in worse shape than people realize, consider the following.
> 
> ...



You nail it.  K was an aggrssive early adopter of snowmaking technology.  As a result, they have a huge amount of old snowmaking infrastructure, much of which is buried underground.  Given the lack of capital over the last decade, much of this system is in desperate need of repair - as evidenced by the examples provided above.  Also, people need to keep in mind that the investment needs to be not only in up front capital, but also in operating expense dollars for snowmaking and running lifts and the other little things that customers notice.  It will be interesting to see if POWDR has this figured out.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 7, 2007)

Tin Woodsman said:


> It will be interesting to see if POWDR has this figured out.



I learned alot from this discussion today.

One of the main criticisms of POWDR Corp. when they bought K was that their other resorts are in the west where abundant snowfall is not a major issue. They are not experienced with resorts that require massive snowmaking efforts.

This may turn out to be an Achilles heel for them.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> I'm not going to debate Killington in this thread, as I said earlier, and again, I wasn't endorsing a relocation of the Snowshed lift to Snowdon.  What I was saying is that many of the lifts I have seen at Killington that would be considered 'old' are indeed reusable.  When a lift is reinstalled, it's gone through top to bottom - anything iffy is replaced.  The main concern with the fixed grip Yans again is the chain tensioning - it might be possible to modify that with a counterweight, but otherwise you're talking a drive terminal replacement (which basically means you're just getting some chairs and towers).
> 
> In terms of poured towers, its more common than you think - if you're hiking ski areas in the summer, take a look - often times you'll have some bolted and some poured (usually depends upon the topography/ledge/tower types).
> 
> Riblet lifts tend to have another variation of this - a smaller portion of 'pipe' is poured into the footing, then the actual tower is bolted to that segment.




Right. With the kind of income K has though, they are best off selling the removed lifts to marginal areas in the midwest etc. that can't afford new lifts and go all new to reap the previously mentioned ancillary rewards of having the newest lifts.

I've never noticed a poured tower ever. I have seen short tube extenders (mostly on Poma lifts) and figured they ended up having to put the tower in a different spot than the design called for or the design was flawed. Maybe those were poured. I'll be looking now! lol


----------



## andyzee (Aug 7, 2007)

I predict that this thread will last longer than Powdr's reign at Killington. Damn, I'm suprised this is still going.


----------



## Grassi21 (Aug 7, 2007)

andyzee said:


> I predict that this thread will last longer than Powdr's reign at Killington. Damn, I'm suprised this is still going.



What is more surprising is that there is all this talk of K in a thread that was started to discuss Pico.  But its not that much of a stretch.... I've only skied 3 days at K so this thread has taught me a great deal about K/Pico.


----------



## threecy (Aug 7, 2007)

snowman said:


> With the kind of income K has though, they are best off selling the removed lifts to marginal areas in the midwest etc. that can't afford new lifts and go all new to reap the previously mentioned ancillary rewards of having the newest lifts.



Probably not that likely (sale of lifts to the midwest) - the lifts are way too big (they'dlikely be split into two or three) and old (cost of transport would drop the overall value of an install).  If anything, it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the older lifts at Pico replaced, for instance, with an outgoing KMart triple or quad.


----------



## snowman (Aug 7, 2007)

threecy said:


> Probably not that likely (sale of lifts to the midwest) - the lifts are way too big (they'dlikely be split into two or three) and old (cost of transport would drop the overall value of an install).  If anything, it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the older lifts at Pico replaced, for instance, with an outgoing KMart triple or quad.



I was thinking they would be shortened if necessary with a new and likely needed haul rope. The best parts would be used and the rest would be stored for spares. Most of them don't exactly climb monsterous verticals at K either. I think the lifts that need replacing typically climb about 600 to 1200 vert? Midwest mountains run 600 to 1200 vert total, so instead of serving a terrain pod they would be scaling the whole mountain there.


----------



## 2knees (Mar 10, 2016)

where is pico?  is it in new england?


----------



## Madroch (Mar 10, 2016)

Hmmmm....


----------



## abc (Mar 10, 2016)

Someone's missing his med


----------



## deadheadskier (Mar 10, 2016)

The opposite. This is classic 2knees when he's OVER medicated.


----------



## Smellytele (Mar 11, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> The opposite. This is classic 2knees when he's OVER medicated.



yup replying to to threads that are 9 years old


----------



## boston_e (Mar 11, 2016)

Interesting that this has come up again.

However it is also interesting, that 9 years later (hard to believe it has been that long) it sure seems as if the Pico operating schedule has worked out very well.  (Setting aside this miserable winter of course).


----------



## manhattanskier (Mar 19, 2016)

Haha this is incredible


----------

