Big changes this season at The Canyons
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
berkshireskier
Active member
"heated seats" - gotta love those on a cold morning. I'm surprised Deer Valley has not installed those.
Admin":13lugezk said:
Besides you I've don't remember a single report from someone at the Canyons so I'm not too surprised that there hasn't been any talk. As a 2-4x a year skier in UT I can't see myself ever ending up at the Canyons. It's an interesting read but to me it means as much to me as if Stowe would have done this.
I realize that Canyons may not be a top priority for many of our forum users, but I find the scope of the changes interesting nonetheless. Also realize that plopped down just about anywhere else in the U.S., Canyons would be a standout resort.
The Canyons story is also part of a bigger picture. It's been an interesting past 7 days at the Park City area resorts. In addition to the Canyons announcement, Park City Mountain Resort, of all places, may have finally just fired the first salvo in a Utah season pass pricing war:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... is-Winter/
(That article won't publish on our home page for another 75 minutes, but you can read it now via the above link. Consider it a "sneak preview" for our forum buds.)
By splitting out the cost of the skiing, a PCMR season pass effectively has dropped in price by 54%. So, PCMR is dropping prices and Canyons is upping the amenities while trying to redefine itself. It should be interesting in coming seasons if this trend continues and other Utah resorts feel the need to respond in kind.
The Canyons story is also part of a bigger picture. It's been an interesting past 7 days at the Park City area resorts. In addition to the Canyons announcement, Park City Mountain Resort, of all places, may have finally just fired the first salvo in a Utah season pass pricing war:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/News/2 ... is-Winter/
(That article won't publish on our home page for another 75 minutes, but you can read it now via the above link. Consider it a "sneak preview" for our forum buds.)
By splitting out the cost of the skiing, a PCMR season pass effectively has dropped in price by 54%. So, PCMR is dropping prices and Canyons is upping the amenities while trying to redefine itself. It should be interesting in coming seasons if this trend continues and other Utah resorts feel the need to respond in kind.
EMSC
Well-known member
Admin":1sibtv0z said:
Somehow I never saw this thread at all until today :-k
socal":1sibtv0z said:
I posted a couple of TR's from there in 08. It was a group trip, otherwise I would have been elsewhere in UT as would most on these boards.
the various lift changes/upgrades, etc... might help with the unfriendly layout some, but the overall issues of connecting the pods and terrain will likely always exist there. Gotta love the touting of orange bubble canopies though. Should look flat out odd or potentially hideous would be my guess.
Admin":1sibtv0z said:
Now that is interesting. $699 for a pass is a whole lot more reasonable than what the bird/Alta are charging. Yes the product is generally worse, but the price differential is large enough it may swing a fair amount of casual skiers. Experts like on these forums, not so much.
I've had 2 days at The Canyons in 1999 and 2004. viewtopic.php?t=5600
The changes, as EMSC noted, don't impact the skiing much but should make the traffic flow around the base area better.
Does admin (or anyone else) have an idea of season pass distribution among the Utah areas? I'm guessing Alta/Snowbird have the lion's share despite the premium pricing.
The changes, as EMSC noted, don't impact the skiing much but should make the traffic flow around the base area better.
But it isn't. Any ski resort needs to be analyzed within its regional market context. ASC didn't get this with The Canyons, and neither did the developers at Tamarack. Then there's our friend soulskier in B.C.....admin":377t3euy said:
Does admin (or anyone else) have an idea of season pass distribution among the Utah areas? I'm guessing Alta/Snowbird have the lion's share despite the premium pricing.
EMSC":3gr45pw9 said:
While most of that paragraph is true I take some exception to "the product is generally worse." "Worse," like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For those who want steep 'n deep, then yes -- PCMR has less of both than the LCC resorts. However that group represents a minority of the skiing population even if it represents a majority of the more prolilfic posters on these forums. Your average skier is looking for more intermediate terrain, more grooming, more park features and more amenities, and PCMR has much more of all four than Alta and Snowbird combined. Plus it's got the resort town for après. In many ways it reminds me of a particular ski resort over your way that's enormously popular: Breckenridge. And there are reasons for Breck's popularity, most of which are stated above.
If word gets out sufficiently about the new pricing structure I suspect that, for example, the lower pass price may take a chunk out of Brighton's season pass business. Brighton has long had a corner on a good sized slice of the local season pass market, particularly with kids and park aficionados. Brighton, however, is charging early bird rates of $849 for an unlimited adult pass, $449 for an unlimited student and $299 for unlimited youth. PCMR has more of everything that Brighton has by an order of magnitude, with the exception of natural snowfall and convenient UTA buses to get the kiddies up the hill after parents drop them off at the bus stop.
Agreed that the majority of AltaBird passholders are the hardcore who would rather fight than switch. However, there is a sufficient casual skier element amongst even their passholders and I'm guessing that more than a couple might bring their wallets to the Wasatch Back instead. One factor to offset the switch would be those who are so casual that they opt for a Utah resident Silver or Gold Card at Alta over a season pass, but there's no similar offering at Snowbird and of course the cards at Alta mean nothing to those who choose to snowboard. So going forward this may prompt even AltaBird to become more creative in their pass pricing structure, especially if places like Brighton and Solitude follow PCMR's lead.
One element from the press conference that never made it into Gina's article on the upgrades at Canyons is that they indicated that pass prices, at least day passes would increase in price a bit to help pay for the upgrades. So while Canyons is adding these amenities they will have forces trying to keep them from competing in any price war that may develop as a result of PCMR's move.
One thing working against all of this conjecture, however, is our relatively small population base. We've only got less than 2 million people living along the entire Wasatch Front, from Ogden to Provo. And those here who are predisposed to skiing pretty much already ski anyway. So you're not going to build your market with converts, and you're largely counting on cannibalizing other resorts to sell season passes. With only 2 million potential customers to draw from, only a fraction of whom ski or snowboard, it's pretty tough to make up for lost revenue per pass with volume generated by lowering prices. These are the factors that I've brought up all along any time someone questions why Utah's season passes are so pricey in comparison to Colorado's.
Tony Crocker":3gr45pw9 said:
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that your guess may be wrong. PCMR, The Canyons and Brighton sell a boatload of season passes, the latter two largely due to price point, and for Brighton also because of the cache of the parks, the night skiing and the convenience described above of sending kids up BCC, which may be offset partially because for teens with a driver's license parents would surely rather send them up I-80 through Parley's Canyon than up BCC. Brighton subsists largely upon locals and draws fewer visitors than its competitors, so any effect that all of this may have on Brighton's revenues may be magnified when compared to the effect on other Utah resorts.
PCMR seems to have hit on part of Brighton's appeal because in addition to the new pricing structure they've also renovated and expanded their night skiing for this winter, and will now run until 9 p.m. daily (I seem to recall it used to be 7:30 or 8 p.m.). Lights will this winter cover PCMR's Pick 'n Shovel Terrain Park and the halfpipe. Snowbasin and to a lesser degree Powder Mountain naturally have a stranglehold on the Ogden market, and Sundance is very competitive for those living in and around Provo, including BYU.
EMSC
Well-known member
Methinks I hit a nerve there somewhere without really trying to.
I used "generally worse" as a comparative to the local market from these forums users POV (or at least those that usually post here). A couple of decent bowls up top, but far worse snowfall and terrain down low would be the general consensus I think on this forum. That aside, I did indicate I thought a lot of casual skiers might be enticed; with casual meaning the great majority of skiers - usually intermediates or just above.
Not sure it will have the intended effect this season. One of the factors of that is announcing it so 'late'. I wonder how many ponied up for passes in the spring at the 'lowest prices for next season' offered by bird/alta, etc... vs those who normally wait and buy in fall (Or is the spring pricing thing different for SLC areas too?).
I used "generally worse" as a comparative to the local market from these forums users POV (or at least those that usually post here). A couple of decent bowls up top, but far worse snowfall and terrain down low would be the general consensus I think on this forum. That aside, I did indicate I thought a lot of casual skiers might be enticed; with casual meaning the great majority of skiers - usually intermediates or just above.
Not sure it will have the intended effect this season. One of the factors of that is announcing it so 'late'. I wonder how many ponied up for passes in the spring at the 'lowest prices for next season' offered by bird/alta, etc... vs those who normally wait and buy in fall (Or is the spring pricing thing different for SLC areas too?).
EMSC":3hr7r0qc said:
Not at all. I was just clarifying. As stated, I agreed with a good chunk of what you wrote above.
EMSC":3hr7r0qc said:
I'm not sure it will either, due to the late announcement, but the spring pricing thing is in fact quite different here. Most places don't start selling passes until mid- to late summer and don't raise to the next price level until late September or early October. The early-bird cutoff at AltaBird, for example, is Sept. 29 this year. The question is whether or not the word will get out sufficiently over the next month or so. I agree that we'll likely see the biggest effect, if any, in subsequent seasons.
Don't know for sure, but the timing seems coincidental to the fact that Jenni Smith took over as President and CEO at PCMR about a month ago. Of course plans for things like upgraded and expanded lighting for night skiing were long in place by then, but it has to make you wonder about the impetus behind the new season pass pricing structure.
As a destination skier (who often skis in groups including intermediate skiers) Canyons has been reasonably compelling. Of course, we always take advantage of QuickStart - I wouldn't ever pay full-price (or even ski-store discount-rates) to ski there given the myriad of better options in the Wasatch. So, I'm probably not the ideal business case for them, but I do go there.
Canyons has 2 distinct advantages.
First, it's so easy to get to it's crazy. I-80 is a breeze and is nearly always open and traffic-free (as opposed to the Cottonwood canyons) - you essentially never need a 4x4 to get there. You don't need to drive through Park City, so it saves you a good 15+ minutes of drive time compared to Park City/Deer Valley. Of course, the walk to and wait at the Gondola burned up that 15 minutes, but the new placement (and the extra capacity of the new bubble quad) effectively eliminate that issue. There's likely not a more accessible large resort in the U.S.
Second, the huge, disperse terrain (though frustrating) does offer up stashes which get lightly tread on since no one knows they're there or they simply don't bother to get there. Sure, the lines are short and modestly steep, but the bulk are at upper elevation and retain good snow (at least for a day or two). Given the big chunk of new terrain (which looks reasonably steep/continuous) via the Iron Mountain hi-speed quad it's conceivable you could get as much untracked as you would at Alta/Snowbird (due to lack of competition). Again, it's not as steep or exhilarating, but it's a quality experience nonetheless.
It really ends up being a disneyland type of decision, ala 'wow, they added a new ride so I'd better go check it out this year'. There's so many compelling resorts in Utah that it's a mix-and-match every trip out. This year I would probably want to hit Canyons to try out the new terrain. If they keep expanding into the upper bowls, I'll be compelled to return in the future. But if they stay pat, the other resorts will likely win out in the long run.
Canyons is also somewhat compelling from a real estate/rental point-of-view. It's not a bad base for Wasatch vacations - you're a shuttle away from Park City, 30 minutes from downtown SLC and not too far away from the Cottonwood and Ogden resorts. It's cheaper than Park City with generally nicer (newer) accommodations.
So, it's obviously not perfect. But with the amount of money they've poured into it, combined with the decent snowfall/terrain, it's worth visiting (but wouldn't be on any short-list).
Canyons has 2 distinct advantages.
First, it's so easy to get to it's crazy. I-80 is a breeze and is nearly always open and traffic-free (as opposed to the Cottonwood canyons) - you essentially never need a 4x4 to get there. You don't need to drive through Park City, so it saves you a good 15+ minutes of drive time compared to Park City/Deer Valley. Of course, the walk to and wait at the Gondola burned up that 15 minutes, but the new placement (and the extra capacity of the new bubble quad) effectively eliminate that issue. There's likely not a more accessible large resort in the U.S.
Second, the huge, disperse terrain (though frustrating) does offer up stashes which get lightly tread on since no one knows they're there or they simply don't bother to get there. Sure, the lines are short and modestly steep, but the bulk are at upper elevation and retain good snow (at least for a day or two). Given the big chunk of new terrain (which looks reasonably steep/continuous) via the Iron Mountain hi-speed quad it's conceivable you could get as much untracked as you would at Alta/Snowbird (due to lack of competition). Again, it's not as steep or exhilarating, but it's a quality experience nonetheless.
It really ends up being a disneyland type of decision, ala 'wow, they added a new ride so I'd better go check it out this year'. There's so many compelling resorts in Utah that it's a mix-and-match every trip out. This year I would probably want to hit Canyons to try out the new terrain. If they keep expanding into the upper bowls, I'll be compelled to return in the future. But if they stay pat, the other resorts will likely win out in the long run.
Canyons is also somewhat compelling from a real estate/rental point-of-view. It's not a bad base for Wasatch vacations - you're a shuttle away from Park City, 30 minutes from downtown SLC and not too far away from the Cottonwood and Ogden resorts. It's cheaper than Park City with generally nicer (newer) accommodations.
So, it's obviously not perfect. But with the amount of money they've poured into it, combined with the decent snowfall/terrain, it's worth visiting (but wouldn't be on any short-list).
Geoff
New member
I logged a bajillion days at The Canyons back when my mom wintered in Park City and my American Skiing Company pass worked there. It is a very flawed mountain. The 9990 lift services world class terrain with a favorable microclimate. There are bits and pieces of nice north-facing chutes off Condor and Snow Canyon. Much of the rest of the place has big problems with sun baking, low elevation, and/or insufficient snowfall. Since much of it is set up along a set of ridge spine, it skis short and you get a New England-like 1000 feet of vertical with traverses at the top and runouts at the bottom. Many of the high traffic intermediate groomers are good ol' New England hardpack. You'd never confuse them with Deer Valley.
I've also caught the place in amazing conditions. A huge early April dump where I had an entire mountain of chest-deep low moisture content fluff to myself. The tree skiing can be quite good though not quite as good as Deer Valley. When it was free, it was a good value. If I'm paying a few hundred bucks per day between lodging and lift tickets and chewing up my very limited vacation time, it simply doesn't appear on my periscope. If I want amenities and fun medium-pitch tree skiing, I'll go to Deer Valley.
For me, Park City Mountain Resort is a big yawn. Jupiter is pretty nice but 9990 and Empire are better if I'm staying in Park City. POWDR owns my home mountain and my season pass doesn't even get me the level of discount at PCMR for day tickets that I can get at a ski shop in Salt Lake City. They've gotten two day tickets out of me over the years and I doubt I will ever go back. In my opinion, their season pass is a lame-ass attempt to compete with Vail. It costs pretty much what a lift ticket for a ski week costs so it will get some amount of people to come back a second time. Vail pretty much owns I-70 skiing and the Denver market. PCMR has pretty much the worst skiing option drive-to from Salt Lake City. If that weren't enough of a hopeless cause, they bought Copper and now own the ski resort everybody drives by on the way to things that Vail owns. They could have gotten a little bit of synergy if they'd marketed PCMR and Copper to their much larger Killington customer base. With today's pricing, I'll stick with my Colorado Pass when I'm working in Denver.
I've also caught the place in amazing conditions. A huge early April dump where I had an entire mountain of chest-deep low moisture content fluff to myself. The tree skiing can be quite good though not quite as good as Deer Valley. When it was free, it was a good value. If I'm paying a few hundred bucks per day between lodging and lift tickets and chewing up my very limited vacation time, it simply doesn't appear on my periscope. If I want amenities and fun medium-pitch tree skiing, I'll go to Deer Valley.
For me, Park City Mountain Resort is a big yawn. Jupiter is pretty nice but 9990 and Empire are better if I'm staying in Park City. POWDR owns my home mountain and my season pass doesn't even get me the level of discount at PCMR for day tickets that I can get at a ski shop in Salt Lake City. They've gotten two day tickets out of me over the years and I doubt I will ever go back. In my opinion, their season pass is a lame-ass attempt to compete with Vail. It costs pretty much what a lift ticket for a ski week costs so it will get some amount of people to come back a second time. Vail pretty much owns I-70 skiing and the Denver market. PCMR has pretty much the worst skiing option drive-to from Salt Lake City. If that weren't enough of a hopeless cause, they bought Copper and now own the ski resort everybody drives by on the way to things that Vail owns. They could have gotten a little bit of synergy if they'd marketed PCMR and Copper to their much larger Killington customer base. With today's pricing, I'll stick with my Colorado Pass when I'm working in Denver.
Geoff":dqmexvw1 said:
Funny, but I personally prefer Jupe over the other two spots you mentioned. I guess that's why they make cars in different colors. Many of Jupiter's best lines aren't obvious in the least. I trust your ability to sniff stuff out, Geoff, but with only two days logged are you sure that you found all that Jupiter had to offer?
Also, PCMR has a lot of positively stellar lines outside of Jupiter -- the trees off Motherlode, really steep old conifers crossing the Pioneer chair, Pinecone Ridge, Molly's, the hike-to terrain off Pinyon Ridge...even the gladed aspens off Crescent for a last run hurrah. I think you're probably selling it short. Give me a shout your next time here and let me show you around a bit.
berkshireskier
Active member
Does anyone on this board think that the way for "Canyons" (what is the point of dropping "The" from the name?) to increase market share is to try to go upscale? Did I read it right that they plan to increase prices (ticket and otherwise) to pay for the new improvements? Given the amount of competition for skiers in Utah and near "Canyons" (PCMR and Deer Valley) and the fact that PCMR is making their season passes more affordable, does "Canyons" stand a chance at grabbing more skiers by charging more for perhaps a slightly better product? Just some random thoughts on a warm summer day on the East Coast.
Mike Bernstein
New member
I don't see how the Canyons can really break through until and unless they solve some of the more fundamental issues with its layout. Even with the installation of the new quad from the base, you still have to take a few lifts and/or deal with an annoying skate/hike to get back to the base. It would seem pretty fundamental to me that you generally want to have your base area accessible to people skiing down the mountain, and that just isn't the case here. The Iron Mtn looks nice, but it will take at least two lifts to get to the bottom of it, before riding the Iron Mtn lift to the top. Something like a day skier parking lot and small lodge would make too much sense near the base of the The Colony, but I guess the owners there wouldn't be too happy with such riff-raff in their midst and you'd also lose out on traffic in the base village. Just another example of the wrong priorities driving mtn ops decisions. That sort of stuff matters, no matter how much you try to paper it over with orange bubbled lifts, a soul-less "ski Beach", two-way lifts, or other such band-aids.
I agree with admin about Jupiter. Look at a Google map and you'll see the top of Jupiter is equidistant between PCMR's Summit House and the top of Great Western at Brighton. So I believe the documented 390 inch average snowfall up there vs. 300 at Summit House or the upper elevations of Canyons and Deer Valley. And there's a lot of terrain on Jupiter with sufficient traversing/exploration (an area of admin's particular expertise :stir: ).
Interesting insights on the PCMR season pass issue. I still think local season passes in Utah are mostly the hard-core, who will not leave LCC. The price sensitive and/or park skiers at Brighton, yes I see PCMR siphoning off some of those.
I also agree Park City and Breckenridge are very close analogies. The town, ski area terrain, overall snow conditions (UT better early, CO better late), proximity of other similar large intermediate-oriented ski areas close by, all very similar. So the question arises whether the season passes are a hook to get destination skiers to visit twice a season instead of just once.
Two big differences:
1) Summit County Colorado sees at least 2x the number of skier days on similar total acreage, so much more congestion in terms of both liftlines and skier density.
2) Summit County Colorado is close to Vail, considered by many the best area in North America for this type of skier. Furthermore the Colorado Pass is good for a few days at Vail/Beaver Creek. Park City's pass is good only there, not even at Deer Valley or the Canyons. So I don't see Park City luring the "2 trips a season" business from Vail Resorts either.
Again the regional factor. Snowbasin and Solitude are equally uncrowded but Snowbasin blows away the Canyons in terrain quality and Solitude blows it away in snowfall.rsmith":1zknpgar said:
This comment really shows how spoiled Utah skiers are. All of these areas are easy daytrips for everyone on the Wasatch Front, shorter than the routine trips skiers make all the time in regional markets like Denver, Seattle, Vancouver, Calgary, Reno/Sacramento.admin":1zknpgar said:
Interesting insights on the PCMR season pass issue. I still think local season passes in Utah are mostly the hard-core, who will not leave LCC. The price sensitive and/or park skiers at Brighton, yes I see PCMR siphoning off some of those.
I also agree Park City and Breckenridge are very close analogies. The town, ski area terrain, overall snow conditions (UT better early, CO better late), proximity of other similar large intermediate-oriented ski areas close by, all very similar. So the question arises whether the season passes are a hook to get destination skiers to visit twice a season instead of just once.
Two big differences:
1) Summit County Colorado sees at least 2x the number of skier days on similar total acreage, so much more congestion in terms of both liftlines and skier density.
2) Summit County Colorado is close to Vail, considered by many the best area in North America for this type of skier. Furthermore the Colorado Pass is good for a few days at Vail/Beaver Creek. Park City's pass is good only there, not even at Deer Valley or the Canyons. So I don't see Park City luring the "2 trips a season" business from Vail Resorts either.
Not IMHO. They are not going to "out-luxury" Deer Valley. The bottom line is Canyons is still a 3rd tier area in the Utah context. By making improvements the best they can do is become one of equals with Park City and Deer Valley in the minds of many destination visitors. Then, when you make the crowd/density comparisons vs. Colorado, maybe the Park City group increases market share vs. other western states, and Summit County Colorado in particular.berkshireskier":1zknpgar said:
This is inherent to the topography. It would have made no sense to develop this in the old days because the lift rides in relation to quantity/quality of skiing would have been interminable before high speed quads.Geoff":1zknpgar said:
You can't change topography. The base area gets very little snow, so you need a couple of high capacity lifts to get people up higher efficiently, which is what these improvements are doing. I don't see Iron Mt. adding that much; I think it's just helping make Dreamscape a bit more accessible and bypassing one of those long runouts.Mike Bernstein":1zknpgar said:
Mike Bernstein
New member
Tony Crocker":1czh7ow6 said:
You needn't change topography. You just have to use it to your advantage. ASC's biggest bonehead move was not moving the base a few hundred yards to the south so it would be near the bottom of Tombstone. Now they are locked into a spot where 3/4 of their terrain requires multiple lift rides just to get to the skiing. My suggestion was to add a small day-skier lot somewhere off of White Pine Canyon Rd. that would either feed directly into Tombstone or a new lift running from the ~7100' elevation up to spot around the 8000' elevation between Tombstone and Iron Mtn. From there, you could ski down and enjoy a bit of real skiing before boarding Tombstone, Iron or Dreamcatcher. As importantly, you'd be able to ski down directly to that lot from the majority of Canyons terrain at the end of the day. It's truly stunning to me that this idea hasn't been implemented and that they are instead doubling down on their flawed base location due to real estate.
I see Mike's point now. ASC developed its real estate and parking at the existing Park West base. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have considered a second base closer to Tombstone, like Vail has at Lionshead. I also think they need an on-mountain restaurant farther south than Red Pine. Lunch is noticeably more inconvenient than at PCMR or Deer Valley.