8 replies to this topic

[Kicking Horse]

SAM Magazine—Big Sky, Mont., June 28, 2005—Big Sky Resort and its new neighbor on Lone Peak, Moonlight Basin, will give visitors next winter the option to purchase tickets and passes allowing unlimited access to both resorts. The resorts shared several trails and a lift in the past. But previously, it was necessary to purchase a ticket or season pass from each if you wanted to ski them both.

Combined, the two trail networks offer nearly 5,300 acres of skiable terrain and the second-biggest vertical descent in the U.S. at 4,350 feet. The combined pass will also provide lift access to hundreds of acres of summit snowfields that were previously accessible only by hiking. Between them, the two resorts operate 23 lifts.

“Big Sky and Moonlight Basin will offer what may well prove to be the largest amount of skiable terrain in the nation,” said Taylor Middleton, general manager of Big Sky Resort. Burt Mills, CEO at Moonlight Basin, added, “What we’re doing is closer to the European model, where adjacent resorts interconnect with a lift ticket that permits skiers to access everything. Moonlight and Big Sky will offer a ski experience larger than many European resorts.”

Joint lift tickets are a rarity in the U.S. Only two other pairs of resorts—both in Utah—offer interconnected lift and trail networks and joint ticket products while maintaining separate ownership. Pricing for interchangeable lift tickets and season passes will be released at a later date.

[liftmech]

It's about time; after all, there is the issue of shared lifts and trails.

[Tin Woodsman]

liftmech, on Jun 30 2005, 10:33 PM, said:

It's about time; after all, there is the issue of shared lifts and trails.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once Moonlight completes its expansion to the West, containing another 2000 acres or so, that place is going to be massive. It will likely rival W/B in size and the north face of Lone Peak where Moonlight is has much more consistent skiable vertical than the E/SE/S exposures that Big Sky occupies. The 4000+ vertical there will actually mean something whereas it's mostly a marketing gimmick at Big Sky b/c you can't ski it continuously and the top 1500 vert is barely accessible via the tram.

[SkiBachelor]

I'm having a hard time picturing Moonlight Basin even coming close to W/B in size. I was there this past winter and there is only plans for 5 more lifts and they all looked rather short in length to make Moonlight Basin even come close to W/B. Plus, a lot of the area at Moonlight Basin is not skiable do to the vast amount of pine trees growing on the mountain, which is so thick that it basically makes a wall. Plus, there are several flat areas so its kind of hard to make a fast moving run without having to push yourself. Moonlight is a very fun mountain to ski with no crowds and some really nice cruisers, but I doubt it will ever come close to mathcing W/B. I would say more like the Yellowstone Club.

Plus, a lot of the land that Moonlight currently owns is not going to be developed because of enviromental protection.

[skier2]

I don't think he means that Moonlight will ever become the size of W-B. H'es talking about the total acres of Big Sky and Moonlight together.

[Tin Woodsman]

skier2, on Jul 1 2005, 02:33 PM, said:

I don't think he means that Moonlight will ever become the size of W-B. H'es talking about the total acres of Big Sky and Moonlight together.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops. Sorry for the confision. Skier2 is right - I meant the combined Moonlight and Big Sky. AFAIK, Moonlight has another couple thousand acres to the West of its current terrain that it plans to develop.

[iceberg210]

Not a bad idea for the two resorts. When I was at Moonlight last winter it was vacant so mabey they will be able to get some more people from this arangement. The one thing I still can't figure out about Moonlight is how can they pay for all the lifts logdes etc if there is no body there? Regardless Moonlight hopefully will delvelope into a great resort and this arracngement with Big Sky will certainly help them.

[SkiBachelor]

The ski area is rather new and the current owner is very wealthy. The problem with Moonlight is that it's just like June in someways. The destination skiers don't know about it and probably don't care so that's why it's such a secret. We told the family that was staying next to us about it and they knew about it but didn't care to see it because they thought it wasn't any good. Well they checked it out the next day and were amazed by it.

The owner of Moonlight pretty much owns all the land that you can North of the ski area. I guess it was former mining land and he purchased it before the U.S. Forest Service was able to or they didn't want it.

[Tin Woodsman]

iceberg210, on Jul 13 2005, 10:48 AM, said:

Not a bad idea for the two resorts.  When I was at Moonlight last winter it was vacant so mabey they will be able to get some more people from this arangement.  The one thing I still can't figure out about Moonlight is how can they pay for all the lifts logdes etc if there is no body there?  Regardless Moonlight hopefully will delvelope into a great resort and this arracngement with Big Sky will certainly help them.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As with most new skiing ventures these days, the ski operation is simply a high-profile loss leader designed to attract clients to the real money spinner - real estate. As long as those homes near Moonlight keep getting sold, that's all that matters for the owners.

BTW, I don't think the June Mtn comparison is apt b/c Moonlight is a) brand new (June is decades old) b) directly adjacent to the bigger Big Sky (June is 10-15 miles away from Mammoth) and c) has better snow than its neighbor due to it's northerly exposure (June always gets less snow than Mammoth). Wait 5-10 years and see how big that place gets.