Northern Rockies/Alberta Big Sky Cuts Tram Access to Lone Peak for Ikon Pass Holders and others......

[dbostedo]

Let’s be clear if you’re already planning a destination ski vacation at Big Sky using your Ikon Pass, you are already spending thousands, so claiming that the added tram fee makes it economically out of reach is a weak argument.

I don't think anyone is making that argument (without re-reading everything). It's about not getting what you (presumably) paid for - which is why it's focused on Ikon. It's not about the actual cost itself.

 

[fatbob]

Well there is a teeny bit that's about the incremental cost. It's all very well saying "well the vacation's costing you $Xk what's another $200" while your market has the discretionary cash....until it doesn't. Then the ski industry will be looking at it's feet shrugging, saying "who knew that the market would collapse so badly or that those kids we shut out wouldn't ever get stoked on skiing?".

Well here's the marker. You know.

 

[dovski]

That may be what some people are talking about. My beef, as someone who has a very similar situation to you, is that this never should have been the "solution". This is "necessary" only because Big Sky has repeatedly prioritized lifts on the lower mountain that were arguably already over provisioned, rather than addressing the only lift on the mountain that regularly has long lines all day long (e.g. not just the morning rush to get away from the base). This is a half-baked plan to cover up for poor management and prioritization.

And for what it's worth, I don't think this extra fee will work for exactly the reason you say it's not a big deal: these fees aren't going to be enough to dramatically cut down usage of the tram because most of these people spent thousands to get there and this is a drop in the bucket. They want their insta moment on top of the world.

So two points
1) hopefully it reduces some of the congestion, ie the lookyloos who are just riding for their Instagram post
2) we have a similar situation at my home mountain where the chair that accesses the Summit is a 60 year old two seater, so on POW days lines form. We often debate the idea of putting in a high speed quad, but the reality is the minute that happens you have too many people skiing the Summit at the same time. So yes BS could upgrade or put in another lift to increase access to Lone Peak but in doing so wouldn’t that destroy the special experience Line Peak currently offers?

I am hopeful that this current solution eases the lines for the tram, but we will have to wait and see.

 

[dovski]

I don't think anyone is making that argument (without re-reading everything). It's about not getting what you (presumably) paid for - which is why it's focused on Ikon. It's not about the actual cost itself.

I think @Philpug already addressed this by saying if you do not like this change ask for a refund. I do agree they should have made this clear before passes went on sale, so now they have to make this right, if they refuse to do so then it is an issue

 

[Tricia]

So let me be the dissenting opinion. As a Mountain Collective Pass holder and someone with Boyne Reciprocal resort privileges I am directly impacted by this change as both of these access options no longer include the tram without an added usage fee and I like this change. Every time I travel to Big Sky which either entails a flight or 12 hour drive I am confronted with multi hour waits for the tram. So I have to make a choice, lose half to a full day of skiing for one tram run or skip it altogether. I always opt for the latter because Big Sky has so many great options. With this change I can setup the autopay on my pass and if the weather and visibility are amenable potentially have the opportunity to ski multiple tram runs without sacrificing a day of skiing all for a nominal fee. The big cost of skiing Big Sky for me is actually getting there, so once I am there paying an incremental fee to access epic terrain quickly is worth it.

Now I can see local BS pass holders who normally buy lower tier passes being miffed especially if they regularly ski the tram, but everyone seems to be upset about the Ikon pass not sharing this change in advance. Let’s be clear if you’re already planning a destination ski vacation at Big Sky using your Ikon Pass, you are already spending thousands, so claiming that the added tram fee makes it economically out of reach is a weak argument. If you can afford to travel to Big Sky you can afford the added $20-80 for a day of tram skiing. Trust me your time you gain on the slopes is worth more per hour than what they are charging. Also as @Philpug said if you do not like this you can most likely get a refund.

I'm in this similar mindset.
As for the local BS pass holders, they've had the lower tier passes without tram access for a while now.
And,... unlike the people who bought IKON or MCP, the announcement from Big Sky about this coincided with their passes going on sale.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

we have a similar situation at my home mountain where the chair that accesses the Summit is a 60 year old two seater, so on POW days lines form. We often debate the idea of putting in a high speed quad, but the reality is the minute that happens you have too many people skiing the Summit at the same time. So yes BS could upgrade or put in another lift to increase access to Lone Peak but in doing so wouldn’t that destroy the special experience Line Peak currently offers?

I don't know the exact capacity of Chair 2, but a typical double easily moves 1000+ skiers per hour. BS tram moves 200. As far as I know, it's literally the lowest capacity lift on the continent. Chair 2 moves something like 5x the amount of skiers. No, I do not think increasing capacity to the top of Lone Peak, even by several times, would destroy much of anything.

And this is probably considered blasphemy, but I wouldn't mind a bit more capacity on upper Alpy. I don't think anyone rational is asking for a high speed quad. But a more modern, slightly faster double, or maybe even a fixed triple would be an improvement imho. Or just the long planned but seemingly unlikely chair up the International side... Which come to think of it is pretty analogous to running a chair up Liberty.

 

[dovski]

I don't know the exact capacity of Chair 2, but a typical double easily moves 1000+ skiers per hour. BS tram moves 200. As far as I know, it's literally the lowest capacity lift on the continent. Chair 2 moves something like 5x the amount of skiers. No, I do not think increasing capacity to the top of Lone Peak, even by several times, would destroy much of anything.

And this is probably considered blasphemy, but I wouldn't mind a bit more capacity on upper Alpy. I don't think anyone rational is asking for a high speed quad. But a more modern, slightly faster double, or maybe even a fixed triple would be an improvement imho. Or just the long planned but seemingly unlikely chair up the International side... Which come to think of it is pretty analogous to running a chair up Liberty.

Good point on capacity there should be a middle ground.

as for chair 2 that is a very old slow chair so I would be shocked if it’s hourly capacity was above 500-600. The real thing I would like to see Alpental do is add a lift to open up more terrain currently accessed through the gates. Would love to see the back bowls made part of the props resort. Doing that would relocate lot of congestion from chair 2 and open up a ton of terrain. I realize this is also blasphemy for many

 

[dbostedo]

as for chair 2 that is a very old slow chair so I would be shocked if it’s hourly capacity was above 500-600.

If you're talking abou Edelweiss, according to Lift Blog it's 1000/hour.

 

[CascadeConcrete]

The real thing I would like to see Alpental do is add a lift to open up more terrain currently accessed through the gates. Would love to see the back bowls made part of the props resort

You may well already know this, but that's the plan for the chair up the International side. It wouldn't top out quite at the summit, but you'd be deposited outside the current Nash Gate and be able to access most of international, and a good chunk of the back bowls more easily from there. Of course that would necessitate some major operational changes as they would have to be able to get a good chunk of the terrain open everyday to have it make sense to open the lift. But more immediately, they actually have to decide to build the thing... It's been officially planned since 2008 or something.

If you're talking abou Edelweiss, according to Lift Blog it's 1000/hour

That's the one! It rarely stops compared to most lifts, and (in normal years) Alpentalics are aggressive about buddying up so seats don't go up empty. So it probably does close to its max capacity in practice.

Based off the lift blog numbers, even the tram at Snowbasin (probably the most similar lift to Big Sky's) and the MRG single chair can do 380 and 480, respectively. 200 is downright pitiful.

 

[dbostedo]

Based off the lift blog numbers, even the tram at Snowbasin (probably the most similar lift to Big Sky's) and the MRG single chair can do 380 and 480, respectively. 200 is downright pitiful.

Well the Big Sky tram is unique though, in what they had to do to put it there, and maintain it. The base station moves (abou 8" a year) on top of a rock glacier and the tram can adjust for it over time. I'm guessing the tram at Snowbasin is much more standard.

Big Sky - COURAGE AND THE LONELY MOUNTAIN

COURAGE AND THE LONELY MOUNTAIN

bigsky.com

 

[CascadeConcrete]

That's all well and good. I have no doubt that the Big Sky tram was heinously complicated to build. But why can't they run another lift up the Liberty side? I don't care if it goes all the way to the top, is relatively low capacity, or even if it's a surface lift. They needed to do something to address capacity on the upper mountain and instead they've messed around putting stupid bubbles on every lift they could think of. I really have no sympathy for them on the capacity issues because they've managed to upgrade seemingly almost every other lift on the mountain and just ignored their signature terrain.

 

[dovski]

You may well already know this, but that's the plan for the chair up the International side. It wouldn't top out quite at the summit, but you'd be deposited outside the current Nash Gate and be able to access most of international, and a good chunk of the back bowls more easily from there. Of course that would necessitate some major operational changes as they would have to be able to get a good chunk of the terrain open everyday to have it make sense to open the lift. But more immediately, they actually have to decide to build the thing... It's been officially planned since 2008 or something.



That's the one! It rarely stops compared to most lifts, and (in normal years) Alpentalics are aggressive about buddying up so seats don't go up empty. So it probably does close to its max capacity in practice.

Based off the lift blog numbers, even the tram at Snowbasin (probably the most similar lift to Big Sky's) and the MRG single chair can do 380 and 480, respectively. 200 is downright pitiful.

Yes I am familiar with that plan but always thought it might be interesting to put in a left that actually took you into the back bowl and would open up that whole area. Perhaps from the top of St. Bernard.

I know at one time there was even talk of a gondola to one of the peaks but believe that involved blasting the peak to create a flat space for the station.

Lots of amazing terrain there but it is prone to avalanches so requires a lot of maintenance to safely open. Who knows maybe one day once Boyne finishes investing in BS

 

[sparty]

That's all well and good. I have no doubt that the Big Sky tram was heinously complicated to build. But why can't they run another lift up the Liberty side? I don't care if it goes all the way to the top, is relatively low capacity, or even if it's a surface lift. They needed to do something to address capacity on the upper mountain and instead they've messed around putting stupid bubbles on every lift they could think of. I really have no sympathy for them on the capacity issues because they've managed to upgrade seemingly almost every other lift on the mountain and just ignored their signature terrain.

While I, personally, like the idea of a surface lift, I wonder how well it would go over with the general customer base. Having seen what happens when we open our t-bar (on a relatively easy pitch) to the public during wind holds, I can only imagine what it would look like headed up Liberty. You'd also create some logistical issues (traffic can't cross a t-bar line per the current ANSI lift regulations, so you'd probably need fence lines); I'm not sure how much that would matter as I don't have a good mental map of the terrain in question, but I'm fairly confident that maintaining fence lines (or even rope lines) wouldn't be much fun.

I don't think it's a stretch, either, that a modern t-bar would overload the summit; beyond snow conditions going to crap more quickly, I wonder how many people who should download would manage to make it up the t-bar and then explode on the way down. You could mitigate that by putting fewer carriers on the line, but you'd be in a diminshing-return situation pretty quickly.

Ramcharger may not have consistently had a line, but on race mornings (the only times I've been there), it could be a pretty good cluster. Adding 200 racers (plus coaches and officials) to the normal skier traffic just overwhelmed it at peak times, particularly for first-run inspection when all of those racers and coaches are trying to get up the hill at the same exact time.

Finally, they did also replace Challenger recently, so it's not all upgrades to shiny bubbles.

 

[Nathanvg]

While I, personally, like the idea of a surface lift, I wonder how well it would go over with the general customer base. Having seen what happens when we open our t-bar (on a relatively easy pitch) to the public during wind holds, I can only imagine what it would look like headed up Liberty. You'd also create some logistical issues (traffic can't cross a t-bar line per the current ANSI lift regulations, so you'd probably need fence lines); I'm not sure how much that would matter as I don't have a good mental map of the terrain in question, but I'm fairly confident that maintaining fence lines (or even rope lines) wouldn't be much fun.

I don't think it's a stretch, either, that a modern t-bar would overload the summit; beyond snow conditions going to crap more quickly, I wonder how many people who should download would manage to make it up the t-bar and then explode on the way down. You could mitigate that by putting fewer carriers on the line, but you'd be in a diminshing-return situation pretty quickly.

Ramcharger may not have consistently had a line, but on race mornings (the only times I've been there), it could be a pretty good cluster. Adding 200 racers (plus coaches and officials) to the normal skier traffic just overwhelmed it at peak times, particularly for first-run inspection when all of those racers and coaches are trying to get up the hill at the same exact time.

Finally, they did also replace Challenger recently, so it's not all upgrades to shiny bubbles.

T bars at Breck and Crested Butte serve similar types of terrain and work just fine. I don't know the ANSI regulations but I do know that people ski across these lift lines all the time and fencing is rare. Usually fencing is more for snow preservation in certain areas which does not impact the skiing significantly.

Challenger was replaced due to mechanical failure. Challenger is also a great example of how 1500 pph capacity does not ruin an expert peak

 

[dbostedo]

I don't know the ANSI regulations but I do know that people ski across these lift lines all the time

The poma at Snowmass has a groomer run that crosses it even...

 

[Andy Mink]

I've no dog in this fight since I haven't renewed my IKON yet. However, if I did before th BS tram news came out I'd be stuck as two of my "home" mountains are Alterra owned (Squaw and Alpine) so if I wish to ski there, and I do, I need IKON. I'd say IKON and BS should honor those who purchased prior and the rest of us are out of luck. I can't imagine there are a ton of those who already purchased who are going to ski BS anyway and those who are won't all show up at the same time.

 

[Johnny V.]

AAAhhh, surface lifts! Guaranteed to keep the old people off the slope after just one trip up it!

 

[PisteOff]

The various YouTube videos I've seen show the A-Z chutes (the other side of the Headwaters, I think?) just look like "point 'em" lines with sketchy entrances.

The Headwaters look more more interesting. It does look like they've installed a safety rope on the hike out?

My recollection is that most of the lines off the tram don't bring you back to the tram base? Like you ride the tram once, because it takes a long time to get back to it?

There’s only a couple ways directly back to the tram from the peak and Big Coulier is actually “the easier way down”.

 

[PisteOff]

Always the consumer advocate, trusting The Man no further than I can throw him, my problem with these things is this:

A vendor of a service (Ikon, Big Sky, Allstate, Avis, whatever) sells me a product for a fixed amount of money. It's a contract: I provide the money, they provide the service.

The money piece is always totally unambiguous and inflexible. I pay the $1000 or whatever it is or I take a hike. There is no option for me to say, "Weeelllll, you know, things have changed and I really only want to pay you $879.39 for this season because it's not a perfect world and I'm not going to be able to take as many days as I thought, blah, blah, blah."

The service piece of the contract should be equally unambiguous and inflexible. If it's not, there is no rational way to judge whether you should spend the money on the product. To put it more bluntly, there is no way to judge whether you're getting ripped off or not. To those who might say, "Well, you have to be able to support a little give and take because it's not a perfect world," I say, "Fine. Then the vendor should be able to do the same. $879.39 it is! Otherwise it's just the lord and the serf all over again."

In short, they shouldn't be able to change the terms after you've bought the product. If they want to change the terms they can do it next year. Otherwise it's fraud, plain and simple. Dammit.

Fuck!! I just agreed with Tony!!

 

[David Chaus]

I get the sense that people are more upset by the principle of the matter than the cost of a BS Tram day. And/or by the “slippery slope” concerns that it creates an industry precedent to have an upcharge for iconic lifts (pun intended), either through a daily fee or a more expensive premium season pass.

Maybe that’ll be the trend, maybe not.

Would people prefer that Alterra dissolve, and we go back to having to choose a 5-of-6 day multi day ticket for the one resort we plan to go to in addition to our home resort, which had a season pass more expensive than the Ikon?

This season, a year of Covid, I was able to use my Ikon pass, not at Aspen for the Gathering as I had planned, but at Crystal, Alpental, Bachelor, Winter Park and Steamboat. No restrictions, no regrets, and no hesitation to renew for next season. And I got a lot of great skiing this season. If I go to BS and can’t ski the Tram (which I didn’t bothering waiting for last year), I’m not going to feel like I got a bad deal.