Vail buying Kirkwood?

[tseeb]

According to http://www.summitdaily.com/article/2012 ... 29960/1078 my $359 Heavenly/Northstar pass is now good at Kirkwood. "Vail Resorts also announced that, effective immediately, Heavenly and Northstar pass holders will have access to Kirkwood and Kirkwood pass holders will be able to ski and ride Heavenly and Northstar." That could change my plans for next weekend as Kirkwood gets more and better snow than Heavenly and is about 50 miles closer to home.

Next year I was thinking about only getting an inexpensive weekday pass to Kirkwood, but that has probably changed too.

 

[SoCal Rider]

I'm not an Admin, but I'll play one this morning:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/02/22/vail-resorts-buys-kirkwood/

 

[Tony Crocker]

Kirkwood is one of my favorite places, but it has not been an economic success despite its stellar snow record relative to its Tahoe competitors. Likely reasons:
1) Its terrain is very good for beginners and experts but just OK for intermediates.
2) Destination visitors would rather stay where the action is at South Lake Tahoe than on an isolated mountain 45 minutes away. Most of these people, even if they have a car, are too lazy to make the daytrip commute, especially if the weather isn't good.

On the real estate end, I note that VR is appealing to Silicon Valley residents, for whom the trip is shorter (and usually less congested) than to north or south Tahoe.

I see ski traffic at Kirkwood ending up something like at A-Basin in Colorado. It may become very busy with passholders on days when conditions are conspicuously superior to the other VR areas in the region.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

That's pretty smart by VMR. Version 1.0 of multi-resort conglomerates like ASC, Booth Creek and Intrawest generally featured the purchase of trophy properties in far flung regions with little opportunity for synergies between the resorts. The far smarter approach, IMO, is to go with a clustering strategy where you can build up local dominance and economies of scale. VMR can share sales and marketing costs across its resorts inthe Colorado and now the Lake Tahoe clusters. It also enables them to target different segments and price points in a particular skier basket, thereby goosing margins.

Also probably doesn't hurt that they bought at the bottom of the market for both real-estate values and in the most miserable snow year for decades.

As for Tony's point, I think the one difference from A-Basin is that, at full build out, there will be thousands of pillows available right at the base, whereas the closest lodging to A-Basin is at the base of Keystone or in the obscure town of Montezuma several miles down the road. This will provide a floor for skier visits and revenues, on top of which will be occasional spikes from Tahoe day-trippers depending on conditions and circumstance. With a combined pass including Northstar and Heavenly, I anticipate you'll see a lot more trial from visitors who might have otherwise remained in the Tahoe basin.

 

[tseeb]

I'm not an Admin, but I'll play one this morning:

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/02/22/vail-resorts-buys-kirkwood/

I beat admin by 80 minutes on it.

I disagree with Tony Crocker's comment of Kirkwood being better for beginners and experts than interemediate. Kirkwood is great for beginners with a slow short chair to the far right of the ski area where it does not get a lot of fast cut through traffic. They also have longer chair 1 which is almost too flat is some places for beginners to keep going.

As long as most of the mountain is open, Kirkwood is also great for intermediates and a good place for them to learn to ski powder. For lower intermediates, there is easy intermediate chair 7, Hole-in-the-Wall, one the Kirkwood's two high-speed quads. For better intermediates there is chair 5/Solitude, usually the last chair at Kirkwood to close due to weather, and chair 4, the Backside, which is nearly all intermediate, and fun in powder or when not crowded for more advanced skiers for as long as they can handle the long slow ride. There are also chairs 2 and 3 going to and from the Backside, facing SE and W respectively, both mostly intermediate. Even Cornice, Kirkwood's other high-speed lift that goes to the ridgeline has intermediate options in all but the firmest conditions. Then there is chair 11, The Reut, with a couple intermediate and some easy black runs.

I think Kirkwood's biggest shortcomings are:
1. Power reliability/not being connected to the grid. I was there for both powerhouse fires. When the chair you are on stops, you look to see if others are stopped, then look for smoke and flames.
2. Lack of high-speed lifts. While The Wall/Chair 10 is steep enough that it does not have to be high-speed to get a lot of vertical, both it and chair 4 both have very long rides and chairs 5 and 11 could also be upgraded.
3. Access. Kirkwood is about 50 miles closer than So. Tahoe/Truckee to So. Bay Area, but in time it is only about 30 minutes closer and I've been stuck all day waiting for the Carson Spur just to the West to open more than once. Plus you can have 50 miles of chain control, like there was last Wed.

Don't get me wrong as I think Kirkwood is a beautiful place to ski and have had passes there two of the last four years. Even when I don't have a Kirkwood pass, I end up skiing there as they usually offer a free day to other area passholders and have been very generous with discounts.

 

[tseeb]

A lot more consise way of saying what I said above is that when in full operation, Kirkwood does not have long middle intermediate runs served by high-speed lifts. They have the Backside with long, slow lift and great wilderness view, but last to open after storms and usually first to close when crowds diminish. The two high-speed lifts are low intermediate Hole-in-the-Wall, also usually not open in shoulder season, and very high intermediate Cornice. I finally looked at a map and they have top of Monte Wolf, Zachary's and Sentinel all marked black, I think Sentinel, except in the firmest conditions is blue and often has best snow on the mountain. The other two, when groomed, I think can be considered high intermediate with a difficult entrance.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Kirkwood's topography is distinguished by a relatively flat lower mountain and a quite steep upper mountain. Everything off Cornice chair is at least single black by mainstream ski area definition. Monte Wolf, Zachary's and Sentinel are accurately marked IMHO. Yes when groomed they are not particularly difficult for most of us, but most low intermediates would think differently. So on the frontside blue terrain is served by two slow 400 vertical chairs (2 and 3) and two 900 vertical chairs (5 and 11). Plus..

Backside with long, slow lift and great wilderness view, but last to open after storms and usually first to close when crowds diminish.

Also can be a cold windy ride.

I'm not sure how much the stratified terrain has contributed to Kirkwood's laggard status in Tahoe ticket (and perhaps real estate) sales. It's somewhat a mystery to me in view of its clear cut superiority in snow conditions.

 

[rsmith]

I'm not sure how much the stratified terrain has contributed to Kirkwood's laggard status in Tahoe ticket (and perhaps real estate) sales. It's somewhat a mystery to me in view of its clear cut superiority in snow conditions.

The vast majority of Tahoe visitors are 'destination'. If it takes >3 hours to get somewhere then most people can only justify skiing via investing in a full weekend or week. In that case it's a full-on vacation and you want the luxury/convenience of a Northstar, the restaurants and varied resort options of North Tahoe, or the casinos, nightlife and lake views of Heavenly. Snow conditions and terrain become secondary. Kirkwood really never had a chance to survive long-term as a stand-alone operation.

My guess is that Vail is looking at Kirkwood as a 'halo' resort to give them terrain/snow bragging rights to go up against the Alpine/Squaw combo. Tahoe season pass holders are generally going to buy either the Alpine/Squaw or the Vail pass, and Kirkwood just gave Vail the marketing ability to attract the more advanced skier to their passes. I don't imagine Vail will sink too much $$$ into Kirkwood - it just doesn't make sense. A Northstar-level build-out would cost way too much and Kirkwood's terrain wouldn't attract the type of skier who also wants to take their family to the skating rink, enjoy a latte by the fire pit, and lounge at the pool.

If I was Vail I would seriously think about building on Kirkwood's strengths, and take it more along the path of Silverton (but not to the same extreme). Keep the slow lifts and the laid-back atmosphere. Hype the snow/terrain and market it as Tahoe's extreme/powder spot. Forget families and sell to the younger, singles crowd (and the Vail season pass holders who can justify a trip or two each season with their buddies without their families tagging along). You may lose even more skier #'s, but I would imagine there's a break-even where your core audience pays for upkeep. In the meantime you have your Corvette to halo your Malibu and Cadillac.

God help the smaller Tahoe resorts. There's certainly a huge amount of skier traffic in Tahoe, but I've got to think the Mt Rose, Sugarbowl, Homewood's, etc. are going to lose a good deal of the lucrative destination skiers, without which they may not be able to survive. If the cost of a Squaw/Alpine or Vail season pass is only marginally more than a week's worth of lift tickets then the destination skier can justify buying the pass to cover their Xmas/winter break ski vacation, after which they'll only ski at that set of resorts for the rest of the season.

 

[longshanks]

I'm not sure how much the stratified terrain has contributed to Kirkwood's laggard status in Tahoe ticket (and perhaps real estate) sales. It's somewhat a mystery to me in view of its clear cut superiority in snow conditions.

The vast majority of Tahoe visitors are 'destination'.

Interesting...What is the split between "local" visits...say California and Nevada residents within a 5-6 hr commute vs. "destination" visits by everyone else?

 

[rsmith]

The vast majority of Tahoe visitors are 'destination'.

Interesting...What is the split between "local" visits...say California and Nevada residents within a 5-6 hr commute vs. "destination" visits by everyone else?

I couldn't find any relevant #'s online, so I'm merely speculating that a high majority of Tahoe skiers are "local" commuters. Reno doesn't have any direct flights from Europe (that I know of), and I doubt there are many East Coast/Texas skiers who would regularly schedule their Western ski trips outside of Colorado/Utah.

The biggest Tahoe 'destination' skier #'s probably come from L.A. and Vegas - short flights from areas with limited local skiing. I would guesstimate that ~85% of Tahoe skiers are "local" commuters (Reno/Sacramento/Bay Area), along the lines of the 90% of skier traffic at Mammoth from SoCal.

Somebody out there probably has the actual #'s...

 

[skibum4ever]

How long before Sierra at Tahoe joins the Vail family?

 

[tseeb]

The vast majority of Tahoe visitors are 'destination'.

Interesting...What is the split between "local" visits...say California and Nevada residents within a 5-6 hr commute vs. "destination" visits by everyone else?

I couldn't find any relevant #'s online, so I'm merely speculating that a high majority of Tahoe skiers are "local" commuters. Reno doesn't have any direct flights from Europe (that I know of), and I doubt there are many East Coast/Texas skiers who would regularly schedule their Western ski trips outside of Colorado/Utah.

The biggest Tahoe 'destination' skier #'s probably come from L.A. and Vegas - short flights from areas with limited local skiing. I would guesstimate that ~85% of Tahoe skiers are "local" commuters (Reno/Sacramento/Bay Area), along the lines of the 90% of skier traffic at Mammoth from SoCal.

Somebody out there probably has the actual #'s...

I don't have the actual numbers, but estimate Heavenly is close to 50/50, which I think is higher than other Tahoe resorts. While riding lifts at Heavenly for 14+ days (edited - 11 days was what I had at Northstar) this season (and poaching a lakefront timeshare hot tub some evenings), I talked to many "destination" visitors. Heavenly has large numbers of skiers from a variety Latin America countries, expecially Mexico, many from Australia and England (often spending a week or two), plus a lot of skiers from other parts of the US. I think gambling, nightlife, a lot of lodging choices and package tours plus more and larger timeshares than the rest of Tahoe all contribute. Many of them do not have cars and probably have Heavenly only tickets so they rarely get to other ski areas.

 

[Tony Crocker]

I don't have the actual numbers, but estimate Heavenly is close to 50/50, which I think is higher than other Tahoe resorts.

I definitely agree Heavenly would have the highest destination percentage of any area at Tahoe. I believe it's specifically marketed to the Brits in conjunction with the casinos and apres-ski scene. For Tahoe overall I'd guess maybe 25% destination vs. drive-ups. This is also supported by the recent reports from Vail Resorts that the Tahoe areas took a much bigger hit from the bad snow year than the I-70 areas.