# `Lifetime' season ski pass holders lose Killington lawsuit



## Glenn (Jul 6, 2010)

_A federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Killington Resort over so-called lifetime ski passes.
_

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100706/BUSINESS/707069887


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 6, 2010)

Like the article says, its being appealed


----------



## WWF-VT (Jul 6, 2010)

The only clear winners so far = Langrock Sperry & Wool


----------



## dmc (Jul 6, 2010)

“The only reasonable interpretation of that language* is that it requires Killington Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so long as it operates in that area* … ,” Reiss wrote in her 31-page decision. 
Reiss continued that the term corporation “clearly refers to the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd” and that the deal was structured as an asset sale and not a transfer of stock. 

Sound open and shut to me...


----------



## threecy (Jul 6, 2010)

dmc said:


> “The only reasonable interpretation of that language* is that it requires Killington Ltd. to provide the designated passholder free use of all ski lifts operated by Killington Ltd. at the Killington Ski Area so long as it operates in that area* … ,” Reiss wrote in her 31-page decision.
> Reiss continued that the term corporation “clearly refers to the named corporations, Sherburne and Killington Ltd” and that the deal was structured as an asset sale and not a transfer of stock.
> 
> Sound open and shut to me...



No kidding.  I was pummelled here a few years ago when I sided with what the judge recently decided.  I can't seem to find that thread...


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 7, 2010)

LOL!  Of course the judge is going to word her opinion to make it sound open and shut.   You think she's going to write something that casts doubt on what she wrote?


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> LOL!  Of course the judge is going to word her opinion to make it sound open and shut.   You think she's going to write something that casts doubt on what she wrote?




Isn't that what it says on the contract?  I don't actually have one in front of me so I rely on the law.

Now that you've stepped out on this - let's hear what the "real deal" is as you see it.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2010)

threecy said:


> No kidding.  I was pummelled here a few years ago when I sided with what the judge recently decided.  I can't seem to find that thread...



I certainly didn't - the word "lifetime" is no guarantee.  I'd never purchase anything that said "lifetime" but thats just me.  And if I did and got 20 years out of it - I'd probably be happy.


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 7, 2010)

dmc said:


> Isn't that what it says on the contract?  I don't actually have one in front of me so I rely on the law.
> 
> Now that you've stepped out on this - let's hear what the "real deal" is as you see it.



I don't have any sort of legal expertise...  I'm just an IT shlub.  But I do know that all people look at things through their own glasses.  Just because one judge says something doesn't mean its the end all truth.  As a seeker of truth yourself dmc, I would think you would agree on that.  Lets see what some other judges have to say if and when this goes higher...  (of course I'm looking at this through my glasses, being a passholder and part of this suit)


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2010)

Here's a hypothetical question I have and I'll preface this by saying, I'm someone who sides heavily with consumer rights over corporate profits.

Say the former owners of Killington went bancrupt and the mountain closed for a couple of seasons.  Then a new owner comes in and starts up operations again.  Would the expectation of the lifetime pass holders be that they be allowed to ski the area for zero additional charge?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the majority of them would not as they would view Killington as a new business.  

While the circumstances are different, isn't Powdr also a new business?  Because of this, unless a contingency plan for the lifetime passes was outlined when they were purchased with specific language as to how they would be treated in the event of the sale of the mountain, I don't think the lifetime pass holders have much of a leg to stand on.

I see both sides, but the longer this plays out, the more I side with Powdr.  This all from just reading about the issue online over the past several years and not having seen first hand the purchase contract for the lifetime passes.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 7, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Here's a hypothetical question I have and I'll preface this by saying, I'm someone who sides heavily with consumer rights over corporate profits.
> 
> Say the former owners of Killington went bancrupt and the mountain closed for a couple of seasons.  Then a new owner comes in and starts up operations again.  Would the expectation of the lifetime pass holders be that they be allowed to ski the area for zero additional charge?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd guess that the majority of them would not as they would view Killington as a new business.
> 
> ...



There is legal precedent where asset sales to dodge liabilities have been disallowed when the only purpose of the asset sale was to dodge the liability.   It happened in the asbestos cases and in toxic waste cases.   Killington as KSRP is the same business as it was as Killinngton, LTD and Sherburne Corp.  Same name.  Same employees.   Same customers.  I figure there is some slim chance that the ruling of a backwater judge in RutVegas might be overturned on appeal.   

As I've written elsewhere, I think that anyone who bought a lifetime pass as a resale when ASC owned the place took a risk that I wouldn't have taken.   From 2000 onwards, it was pretty clear that the company was insolvent.   It was pretty smart of POWDR to get the lease rewritten by the state to transfer it to KSRP.   If you want to point fingers, point them at the troll in Montpelier who didn't think to ask why that would be necessary since the lease was with Sherburne Corp and POWDR could have just bought the corporation.   That was done without a public hearing.


----------



## threecy (Jul 7, 2010)

I think it's important to note that not all lifetime passes were voided - rather, only stock-related passes were voided - stock in a now-defunct company.

Folks who received lifetime passes direct from Killington for other reasons still have their passes.


----------



## Brownsville Brooklyn (Jul 7, 2010)

WWF-VT said:


> The only clear winners so far = Langrock Sperry & Wool



thats how it usually works....


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 7, 2010)

Geoff said:


> There is legal precedent where asset sales to dodge liabilities have been disallowed when the only purpose of the asset sale was to dodge the liability.   It happened in the asbestos cases and in toxic waste cases.   Killington as KSRP is the same business as it was as Killinngton, LTD and Sherburne Corp.  Same name.  Same employees.   Same customers.  I figure there is some slim chance that the ruling of a backwater judge in RutVegas might be overturned on appeal.
> 
> As I've written elsewhere, I think that anyone who bought a lifetime pass as a resale when ASC owned the place took a risk that I wouldn't have taken.   From 2000 onwards, it was pretty clear that the company was insolvent.   It was pretty smart of POWDR to get the lease rewritten by the state to transfer it to KSRP.   If you want to point fingers, point them at the troll in Montpelier who didn't think to ask why that would be necessary since the lease was with Sherburne Corp and POWDR could have just bought the corporation.   That was done without a public hearing.



I agree 100% of this one...


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 7, 2010)

So anyone want to partner on a new corp with me?  We'll sell "lifetime*" access to our product with fine print saying that it will expire if the company is sold.  We collect our money, sell the company cheap and retire to the beach.  We have the money and our customers and don't have to actually provide anything.  
May be technically legal but fails the common sense test IMO.


----------



## Sparky (Jul 7, 2010)

Alright, I’ve heard a lot about the price/value of a lift ticket, life time or otherwise, however I haven’t heard anything about the actual cost/overhead to the resort. If there are 1,243 of these lift time tickets and Killington gets maybe 300,000+ skier visits a year, what is the annual cost to them? What is the cost of this litigation as well as the damage to their reputation?  Just what do the numbers show?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 7, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> So anyone want to partner on a new corp with me?  We'll sell "lifetime*" access to our product with fine print saying that it will expire if the company is sold.  We collect our money, sell the company cheap and retire to the beach.  We have the money and our customers and don't have to actually provide anything.
> May be technically legal but fails the common sense test IMO.



Two can play this game.

How about we do what you said, but since you failed to read the small print, me and my friends have to bail you out at our own expense.  

I have zero sympathy for the people who bought their passes on the secondary market - they did nothing to invest in the original hill and weren't taking any risk (oh the irony) that Killington would not make it in its early years.  I never bought into the rationale for this lawsuit as a reading of the purchase agreement indicated that the lifetime passes weren't quite the only thing held back in the transaction, though it was close.  

For all of you chiming in with your "common sense test" answers, they are truly irrelevant in this case.  It is a long-established legal precedent that within the context of an asset sale (as opposed to a stock sale), a buyer picks up only the assets and liabilities he/she wants (so long as the seller agrees).  It is critically important that these sorts of transactions are part of the landscape b/c businesses and subsidiaries aren't always (in fact, are quite rarely) structured in a way that makes a sale of their stock to another party possible or feasible.  For example, if Target wants to sell 5 stores to Wal-Mart, those stores may be part of the parent holding company and not separate legal entities.  Should Target's only option be to sell the whole company or not do the deal at all?   Of course not.  

The fact that the judge dismissed the lawsuit before it even came to trial is a pretty good indication that the passholders should save their money and give up the ghost.  The % of cases where the plaintiff wins on appeal after being dismissed at a lower level isn't high.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2010)

Does anyone know the passes say that they are transferrable?


----------



## EPB (Jul 7, 2010)

Sparky said:


> If there are 1,243 of these lift time tickets and Killington gets maybe 300,000+ skier visits a year, what is the annual cost to them?



I can answer this one for you:

First off, the 300,000+ figure you mentioned irrelevant to the cost of letting the lifetime pass holders ride the lifts for free under new ownership. The "cost" to Killington is most simply what it's giving up in lost revenue.  In this case, lost pass revenue can basically be defined as:
 (% of skiers that would stay despite losing their lifetime pass) * (average price of season pass in the comming years)*(average amount of years skiers who lost their lifetime pass continue to purchase passes in the future)

Considering the current real estate market, lifetime pass holders who own property on/near Killington are likely to keep buying passes in the forseeable future.  It wouldn't be surpsing if by the time its feasible for them to jump ship. the sting of losing their passes will have worn off, and they decide to stick around.

So the real wild cards are A: the % of lifetime pass holders who are tied to the area and B: the % of said passholders that will actually jump ship. Passholders that aren't invested in the area are likely harder to come by, and more likely to ski somewhere else, though I suspect these types are rather hard to find.

Clearly Powdr thought it would be worth their while to discontinue the lifetime pass.  They likely ran the numbers and made a decision that was certainly their's to make.  I surely won't lose any sleep over it because seriously, who's naive enough to believe that anything stamped with a lifetime approaval will last until the day they die?


----------



## threecy (Jul 7, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Does anyone know the passes say that they are transferrable?



There are multiple sets of these passes, some with I believe unlimited transfers, others with 1 transfer.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2010)

threecy said:


> There are multiple sets of these passes, some with I believe unlimited transfers, others with 1 transfer.


 
Just wondering, because I know some people have sold them.


----------



## legalskier (Jul 7, 2010)

Geoff said:


> There is legal precedent where asset sales to dodge liabilities have been disallowed when the only purpose of the asset sale was to dodge the liability.   It happened in the asbestos cases and in toxic waste cases.   Killington as KSRP is the same business as it was as Killinngton, LTD and Sherburne Corp.  Same name.  Same employees.   Same customers.



The plaintiffs' lawyers in all likelihood explored this possibility, and the court appears to have "headed this issue off at the pass," as the article states:
_In her decision, Reiss also found no breach of good faith or fair dealing on the part of the former owners and operators of the resort._ 

What I'm wondering is whether Powdr will go after the passholders who've been skiing there "for free" since 2007, when Powdr took over, now that the court ruled it wasn't obligated to honor them. Probably not, as the bad PR would compound even more, not only from this but also from the fact that they can't spell "powder."


----------



## Geoff (Jul 7, 2010)

legalskier said:


> The plaintiffs' lawyers in all likelihood explored this possibility, and the court appears to have "headed this issue off at the pass," as the article states:
> _In her decision, Reiss also found no breach of good faith or fair dealing on the part of the former owners and operators of the resort._
> 
> What I'm wondering is whether Powdr will go after the passholders who've been skiing there "for free" since 2007, when Powdr took over, now that the court ruled it wasn't obligated to honor them. Probably not, as the bad PR would compound even more, not only from this but also from the fact that they can't spell "powder."



Yeah, well...  Christina Reiss isn't exactly a seasoned judge.  She's only been a Federal judge for 9 months.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2010)

A lot of folks pipping in with opinion not based on legal expertise but rather emotional response to a situation that does not seem or feel right. Seems to me that a judge that is an expert in business law ruled on the case. 

Folks, like them or not, the laws are there and our society functions for better or worse based on them. Sometimes we just see the overt occasional problem with business law but we don't see all the protections that DO protect the consumer. Had the situation been different, the same law could be used to enforce protection of the lifetime pass holders. Based on how the business deals were done, that is not the case. And laws that benefit business ultimately generally do benefit the consumer in the long run because they allow businesses to operate most efficiently otherwise innovations, progress, and services could be hindered. It just sounds like a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses here... I bet in other situations in other industries, most folks on here would not bat an eye... especially if they were not so personally effected. 

Feel free to argue that the law should be changed to better protect the consumer. But I am surprised so many people claim to know more about the law than a Federal Judge (9 months or 9 years, it takes some experience and expertise to become a Federal Judge).


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2010)

Geoff said:


> Yeah, well... Christina Reiss isn't exactly a seasoned judge. She's only been a Federal judge for 9 months.


 
It takes a lot of experience to be named to the federal bench.  It is a very respected position.  Sorry that your side did not win.  From what I saw, it was a difficult case.  Maybe something was gained from it other than a legal win.


----------



## threecy (Jul 7, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Feel free to argue that the law should be changed to better protect the consumer.



Other than the folks who bought the passes second hand, there really aren't any consumers.  These passes were given as a bonus to stockholders.  They invested in Sherburne Corporation and were given free skiing for life as a perk.  The Sherburne Corporation has been gone for about a quarter of a century.  The closest thing still in existence would be Oak Hill Capital Partners, who became principal owners in ASC toward the end of its history.


----------



## dmc (Jul 7, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> As a seeker of truth yourself dmc, I would think you would agree on that.  Lets see what some other judges have to say if and when this goes higher...  (of course I'm looking at this through my glasses, being a passholder and part of this suit)



Pretty much why I wanted to hear your opinion..  Looking for a different side to the story...

Havent made up my mind on this 100%  - not that it matters cause I'm just an observer.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 7, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> It takes a lot of experience to be named to the federal bench.  It is a very respected position.  Sorry that your side did not win.  From what I saw, it was a difficult case.  Maybe something was gained from it other than a legal win.



Yeah.   It sure takes a lot.  ...of political connections.


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 8, 2010)

dmc said:


> Pretty much why I wanted to hear your opinion..  Looking for a different side to the story...
> 
> Havent made up my mind on this 100%  - not that it matters cause I'm just an observer.



like rivercoil said, my opinion is pretty much worth less than beach sand.  I'm a complete idiot when it comes to the legal system.  Of course I hope the ruling goes in my favor.  But either way I'm not leaving Killington.

BTW another factor to consider in the powdr equation as to whether to honor the passes a few posts back, is the fact that out of the 1200 or so, only about 300 were actively being used.  Believe it or not.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2010)

SkiDork said:


> .  Of course I hope the ruling goes in my favor.  But either way I'm not leaving Killington.



So y'all own the passes?


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 8, 2010)

dmc said:


> So y'all own the passes?



I have 2.


----------



## ta&idaho (Jul 8, 2010)

I've been following this thread and finally decided to post some thoughts, now that I have read Judge Reiss's opinion:

1.  The passes at issue do not grant the right to ski at Killington for the holder's "lifetime."  Rather, they are valid "so long as the corporation shall operate in that area [the Killington Basin] under an agreement with the State of Vermont."  The "corporation" stopped operating in the area in 2007.  The investors might have thought that they were buying "lifetime" passes, but they were wrong.

2.  Judge Reiss addressed--and rejected--the argument that the asset sale was essentially a sham (or a "mere continuation") and that the new owners should be obligated to honor the passes.

3.  Judge Reiss was a state Judge in Vermont for five years before her nomination to the Federal bench.  Before that, she was worked in private practice in Vermont and Maine.  She also graduated second in her law school class (in apparent brief lapse of judgment, she left ski country to attend law school at the University of Arizona) and clerked for a judge on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.  She received a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, and she was quickly confirmed by the Senate. In my humble (yet professional) opinion, the written opinion in this case is thorough, detailed, and well reasoned.  I cannot see any reason to doubt her fairness, competence, or dedication, and I question the motives of those who have.

4.  When does ski season start back up?


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 8, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Two can play this game.
> 
> How about we do what you said, but since you failed to read the small print, me and my friends have to bail you out at our own expense.
> 
> ...



I don't have an argument against the legal decision.

And the duration between when these lifetime passes were created and distributed and now is long enough to pass the common sense test that there weren't a scam, which I think is the biggest difference between this case and my example.

The part where we really differ is your lack of sympathy for those affected.  In my utopia if something says lifetime it means lifetime, and you can trust a deal on a handshake rather than detailed legal analysis.  Reality is buyer beware.

I also just like to bag on Killington at every opportunity.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 8, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> I don't have an argument against the legal decision.
> 
> And the duration between when these lifetime passes were created and distributed and now is long enough to pass the common sense test that there weren't a scam, which I think is the biggest difference between this case and my example.
> 
> ...



I have no sympathy for those who bought the pass on the second market - buyer beware, as you said.  

Perhaps I should rephrase, actually.  I have some sympathy for those folks b/c they paid money and thought they'd be receiving a service.  To have that taken away after shelling out thousands of dollars really does suck.  Much of that sympathy evaporated, however, when they decided to bring this issue to court on what always appeared to me as a shaky legal basis, at best.  Take your medicine for not reading the fine print, shut up and go home.


----------



## dmc (Jul 8, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> The part where we really differ is your lack of sympathy for those affected.  In my utopia if something says lifetime it means lifetime, and you can trust a deal on a handshake rather than detailed legal analysis.  Reality is buyer beware.



Who's lifetime? What lifetime?  
the lifetime of the person that bought it?
The lifetime of the corporation that sold it?
The geological lifetime of the mountain?

I'm not really sure how the contract defines "lifetime"


----------



## skiadikt (Jul 8, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I have no sympathy for those who bought the pass on the second market - buyer beware, as you said.
> 
> Perhaps I should rephrase, actually.  I have some sympathy for those folks b/c they paid money and thought they'd be receiving a service.  To have that taken away after shelling out thousands of dollars really does suck.  Much of that sympathy evaporated, however, when they decided to bring this issue to court on what always appeared to me as a shaky legal basis, at best.  Take your medicine for not reading the fine print, shut up and go home.



i do think some folks might have been lulled in by the fact that in previous sale from ski to asc, the passes were honored so there was every reason to think that would be the case in the sale from asc to powdr. also if you bought 7 or 8 yrs ago, it might not have not evident that asc was gonna have to sell the place. i'd be curious if any of this was a consideration when skidork purchased his passes.

in my case until the cheap asc passes reared their ugly head, on a seasonal basis, i almost always bought a bond pass as they were cheaper than a pass purchased from the mtn. at one point i even considered buying a lifetime pass. guess fortunately i didn't ...

i know a couple of long time access rd business owners (25+yrs) who obviously are not w/ happy with the situation. unfortunately for powdr/ksrp, some of these town people are the very people who need to approve or are influential in the approval of the proposed village. so in the long run, they may just be messing with the wrong people.


----------



## threecy (Jul 9, 2010)

skiadikt said:


> unfortunately for powdr/ksrp, some of these town people are the very people who need to approve or are influential in the approval of the proposed village. so in the long run, they may just be messing with the wrong people.



But on the flip side, if people drag down SP/Powdr, then it'll affect the working/business owning locals, so perhaps they'll realize they're messing with the wrong people.


----------



## Groundskeeper Willie (Jul 9, 2010)

*wow....its really NOT that complicated...*



dmc said:


> Who's lifetime? What lifetime?
> the lifetime of the person that bought it?
> The lifetime of the corporation that sold it?
> The geological lifetime of the mountain?
> ...



the language WAS and IS there...for any and all to peruse....and the ruling justice on the matter saw it to be CRYSTAL clear. The subsequent string of owners were under ZERO obligation to maintain/honor the covenants of the ORIGINAL bond passes....that they CHOSE to do so was out of...shall you say?...benevolence...nothing more. The passes were for the LIFETIME of the ISSUEING company...NOT of the pass holder. The company went kaput...and so to do the passes. End of the book. It has ZERO to do with waxing hypothetical about "did the passholder get their monies worth" or some other argumentative path. The company ENDED. So too do the passes.  Hon Reiss  saw it to be as CRYSTAL clear as it could be....and these piss 'n moaners will now embark  on a discussion streak of " is she a seasoned judge" ETC..........TAKE YER BALL AND GLOVE AND GO HOME. You LOST. :sad:


----------



## threecy (Jul 9, 2010)

Groundskeeper Willie said:


> the language WAS and IS there...for any and all to peruse....and the ruling justice on the matter saw it to be CRYSTAL clear. The subsequent string of owners were under ZERO obligation to maintain/honor the covenants of the ORIGINAL bond passes....that they CHOSE to do so was out of...shall you say?...benevolence...nothing more. The passes were for the LIFETIME of the ISSUEING company...NOT of the pass holder. The company went kaput...and so to do the passes. End of the book. It has ZERO to do with waxing hypothetical about "did the passholder get their monies worth" or some other argumentative path. The company ENDED. So too do the passes.  Hon Reiss  saw it to be as CRYSTAL clear as it could be



SP/Powdr had nothing to do with the demise of Sherburne Corporation, S-K-I Ltd., or ASC.  The original passholders owned a company that eventually went belly up.  SP/Powdr shouldn't have to do anything for the shareholders of a dead corporation that they didn't purchase liabilities from.  Based upon everything I've seen, this was a good decision by the court.


----------



## Groundskeeper Willie (Jul 9, 2010)

threecy said:


> SP/Powdr had nothing to do with the demise of Sherburne Corporation, S-K-I Ltd., or ASC.  The original passholders owned a company that eventually went belly up.  SP/Powdr shouldn't have to do anything for the shareholders of a dead corporation that they didn't purchase liabilities from.  Based upon everything I've seen, this was a good decision by the court.



Company went belly-up?.End of passes. Company gets sold?...changes corporate charter? SAME THING!....all these pass/bondholders TRIED to have the courts believe that there was some ambiguity in the wording of the pass issuance. There WASNT......and the courts made it quick and decisive......next thing you know , these tubesteaks will take their defunct S&H Greenstamps to hannafords and lay claim that since this ONCE WAS an A&P grocery store...sheeshhhh...


----------



## dmc (Jul 9, 2010)

I'd sue the F'er that sold to me...  Probably a better chance of winning..


----------



## dmc (Jul 9, 2010)

Groundskeeper Willie said:


> .next thing you know , these tubesteaks will take their defunct S&H Greenstamps to hannafords and lay claim that since this ONCE WAS an A&P grocery store...sheeshhhh...



Good one...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 9, 2010)

threecy said:


> But on the flip side, if people drag down SP/Powdr, then it'll affect the working/business owning locals, so perhaps they'll realize they're messing with the wrong people.



Baloney.  If SP/POWDR is intent on building out a vision that is going to hurt their business even more and which is ignorant of market realities in the East as a whole and K-Mart in particular, the locals should be cautious.  If those clowns leave, K-Mart isn't just going to roll the carpets up and cease functioning.  Another operator will come in, presumably one who can't do much worse than the clowns currently in charge.  Of course, no one thought things could be worse than under the latter years of ASC and look how that turned out.  That said, I would never advocate simply rolling over for the local mountain just b/c they want something.  SPs village development plans have been joke worthy while POWDR has run away 1/3 of the customers who were left when ASC died.  It's the worst of both worlds - why would anyone support that?


----------



## Groundskeeper Willie (Jul 9, 2010)

*with SP having given up 25% ridership...*



Tin Woodsman said:


> Baloney.  If SP/POWDR is intent on building out a vision that is going to hurt their business even more and which is ignorant of market realities in the East as a whole and K-Mart in particular, the locals should be cautious.  If those clowns leave, K-Mart isn't just going to roll the carpets up and cease functioning.  Another operator will come in, presumably one who can't do much worse than the clowns currently in charge.  Of course, no one thought things could be worse than under the latter years of ASC and look how that turned out.  That said, I would never advocate simply rolling over for the local mountain just b/c they want something.  SPs village development plans have been joke worthy while POWDR has run away 1/3 of the customers who were left when ASC died.  It's the worst of both worlds - why would anyone support that?



HOW can this be a BAD thing...FOR A SKIER/RIDER?.. I have no interest in their bottom line...but DO enjoy A: less crowded trails...B: shorter liftlines....C: NOT having ass-to-ass interaction a la ASC's $399season ticket years....I'd rather look at it as a CONSUMER...its their company....if they wanna endeavor to make it a faux Deer  Valley ( which'll never happen) , let 'em. and when it shits the proverbial bed?...I'll join in the raucous laughter...


----------



## SkiDork (Jul 9, 2010)

Groundskeeper Willie said:


> HOW can this be a BAD thing...FOR A SKIER/RIDER?.. I have no interest in their bottom line...but DO enjoy A: less crowded trails...B: shorter liftlines....C: NOT having ass-to-ass interaction a la ASC's $399season ticket years....I'd rather look at it as a CONSUMER...its their company....if they wanna endeavor to make it a faux Deer  Valley ( which'll never happen) , let 'em. and when it shits the proverbial bed?...I'll join in the raucous laughter...



I think he was saying support from a local business perspective...


----------



## Groundskeeper Willie (Jul 9, 2010)

*oops..*

Clearly I missed the jist of it...mybad..


----------



## jack97 (Jul 9, 2010)

Groundskeeper Willie said:


> ..next thing you know , these tubesteaks will take their defunct S&H Greenstamps to hannafords and lay claim that since this ONCE WAS an A&P grocery store...sheeshhhh...



yeah.... a good analogy. 

I have no sympathy for any of the "lifetime" k mart pass holders, if anything... it cases like this that tells me we have to many lawyers looking for any miniscule technicalities to challenge a case where its so black and white.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 10, 2010)

Groundskeeper Willie said:


> HOW can this be a BAD thing...FOR A SKIER/RIDER?.. I have no interest in their bottom line...but DO enjoy A: less crowded trails...B: shorter liftlines....C: NOT having ass-to-ass interaction a la ASC's $399season ticket years....I'd rather look at it as a CONSUMER...its their company....if they wanna endeavor to make it a faux Deer  Valley ( which'll never happen) , let 'em. and when it shits the proverbial bed?...I'll join in the raucous laughter...



At some point, skier volume drops to the point where Killington isn't viable.   It's expensive to blow all that snow and pay the staff & expenses to operate all those lifts and base lodges at a ski area that sprawls so much.   At the 650-ish thousand skier visits they're doing now, they're viable as long as energy prices don't spike.   At 500K skier visits, the whole thing probably falls over.   They're already down 1/3 under POWDR.   If you lose much more, you start seeing business failures on the Access Road and the skier visit loss snowballs.   $5.00/gallon gas prices and a string of bad snow winters where it's too warm to blow snow could easily cause a 150,000 skier visit drop.

I'm not saying it's going to happen but the business has been so mismanaged that it's certainly possible.


----------



## threecy (Jul 10, 2010)

Geoff said:


> At the 650-ish thousand skier visits they're doing now, they're viable as long as energy prices don't spike.   At 500K skier visits, the whole thing probably falls over.



Take a look at their lifts and lodges.  At 650K-1M visitors, they're usually at 100% operation on weekend/holidays to accomodate the crowds (including the former stock issued lifetime passes).  Quite a few lifts and lodges are not necessary - they certainly can scale back a bit more if they need to.  Hopefully, as they eventually replace more of the ancient Yans, they re-engineer their pods to allow for less lifts in order for a barebones operation.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 11, 2010)

threecy said:


> Take a look at their lifts and lodges.  At 650K-1M visitors, they're usually at 100% operation on weekend/holidays to accomodate the crowds (including the former stock issued lifetime passes).  Quite a few lifts and lodges are not necessary - they certainly can scale back a bit more if they need to.  Hopefully, as they eventually replace more of the ancient Yans, they re-engineer their pods to allow for less lifts in order for a barebones operation.



I know they're doing this on weekdays, much to the chagrin of many locals, but I'm not sure how they could do it on weekends.    IIRC, they don't run Canyon, South Ridge or Needles Eye on some/all weekdays.  Same for the Skyeship as well.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 11, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I know they're doing this on weekdays, much to the chagrin of many locals, but I'm not sure how they could do it on weekends.    IIRC, they don't run Canyon, South Ridge or Needles Eye on some/all weekdays.  Same for the Skyeship as well.



...and that has done a very nice job of chasing away the midweek business.   Killington charges the same $77 day ticket rate on a Wednesday when services are dramatically curtailed as on a Sunday.   POWDR has done little to promote midweek business, either.

As I said, the whole thing snowballs.  The nightlife vanishes because the bars can't justify hiring entertainment.   That causes the core demographic that Killington has always attracted.... the big spending Jersey Joey and his red talon nail & lipstick big haired girlfriend.... to go elsewhere.  Killington can't make it on their advanced skier season pass base.   It's the metro-NYC day ticket people who pay the bills since Killington has pretty much lost the Boston market.


----------



## dmc (Jul 11, 2010)

Geoff said:


> As I said, the whole thing snowballs.  The nightlife vanishes because the bars can't justify hiring entertainment.   That causes the core demographic that Killington has always attracted.... the big spending Jersey Joey and his red talon nail & lipstick big haired girlfriend.... to go elsewhere.  Killington can't make it on their advanced skier season pass base.   It's the metro-NYC day ticket people who pay the bills since Killington has pretty much lost the Boston market.



Wonder if the demographic is going to head back to Hunter?   No rumblings from the Hunter ex-patriots of leaving K... But they are hair and makeup gondola types...


----------

