Are there uncrowded ski areas with on-site lodging?

[Tony Crocker]

I haven't been to Mammoth, so I'm curious if Mammoth offers any advantage to the the fly-in folks compared to other ski areas. Is the lodging affordable like SLC?

No. Hotels are few and not a great value. Lodging is mostly condos, reasonable for a big group but so-so for a couple or family. And very little of the lodging is on the hill, though the drive is short and there is decent free bus service from town to the hill as an alternative.

Is it uncrowded during the week like the interior NW areas we are discussing here?

Not THAT uncrowded, but compared to major resorts in Utah, Colorado or Tahoe, yes. The lift system is built to handle weekend crowds, so lift lines are short to non existent midweek unless the weather is bad and shuts down a lot of them. The caveat with that many lifts is that the new snow gets hammered fast on big powder days.

Does Mammoth offer enough of an advantage over Tahoe for people to consider the extra drive?

Yes, when there's a major difference in conditions. There are three scenarios here:
1) Early season if the first storms were mostly rain at Tahoe but snow at Mammoth.
2) Sustained mid-season drought when the surfaces will melt/freeze at Tahoe but remain packed powder over half or more of Mammoth.
The 2012-13 and 2017-18 seasons were a combination of 1) and 2) for several months.
3) Better spring snow preservation from mid-March onwards with the disparity growing by the week in the absence of significant new snow.

Or in case of people flying in, what is the advantage of Mammoth over Bachelor. Both require 3 hour drive from a medium sized airport. For someone like me, if I'm going to drive 7-8 hours, why not drive to Mt. Bachelor instead? Mt. Bachelor doesn't have onsite lodging, so Mammoth has that advantage.

In your case Bachelor is better for now. Mammoth's big advantage over Bachelor is much more advanced/expert terrain. Bachelor is way cheaper for lodging, lift tickets if you don't have Ikon. The drive up the hill is 25 minutes vs. 10 but it's a straight and easy drive. Both places are vulnerable to wind/weather shutdowns, but Bachelor is worse in that regard. That's why I think Bachelor skews even more to spring than Mammoth.

I'm also curious how many destination skiers go to Tahoe.

Kottke 2016-17 said 19% of California skier visits were from out of state. When you consider that number is about 10% for Mammoth and essentially zero for SoCal, it's surely in the 25% range for Tahoe overall and probably much more for high visibility areas like Heavenly.

 

[snowave]

I know easy access and crowds are highly correlated. So I'm glad to read thoughts about access from the perspective of others.

I have been to DEN a few times. I dislike Denver because it is a very large airport, requires a train within the airport, then another long shuttle to rental cars, and you drive through the whole city to go to the mountains and the road to the mountains involves a difficult drive. I think SLC is the most accessible airport for West Coast skiers, all things considered. I usually find prices to SLC much cheaper than DEN. Of course, that will be reverse for East Coast folks. No wonder most ski areas in CO are crowded.

My observation based on limited data for those small airports is that they tend to have very expensive flights. I have occasionally checked and I've never found affordable flights to EGE, ASE, BZN, MTJ, JAC and a few others. Spokane and Boise are available with Southwest and that improves their accessibility score. I could have booked a President's day flight to Spokane for ~$200 round trip with Southwest, but decided to skip as we are going to ski the whole week after that.

Google says Sun Valley is a 2.5-hour drive from Boise. Beaver Creek is similar. I haven't done the Sun Valley drive so I don't know if it is a difficult one. My hypothesis is we can reach Sun Valley cheaper and faster than Beaver Creek. Same with Schweitzer.

It's fun to discuss these things. Let's see how many ski areas we can cross off. I will aim for 2-3 new areas per ski season.

Sun Valley is an easy drive from SLC in my experience.
The difference between crowds coming from the nearest major population centre to Beaver Creek and Sun Valley is Denver has about 3 million inhabitants and Boise has about 300000.
Also flying into Hailey is subsidized by the resort I believe so reasonable flight costs are available.

Boise is actually approaching 1 million for the entire statistical area. Still a far cry from Denver/Front Range, but it continues growing rapidly. That could be a plus for in the future if more airlines come in. I've never been to Sun Valley, so can't comment on the drive. However, I know its very pricey to stay there, especially if you are used to using hotel points, etc as there are not really any "chains" that I'm aware of.

If minimal crowds are really a focus, I'd consider some of the places that may be a little tougher to access. In the end, that may balance itself out, with the exception of Telluride and maybe Sun Valley.

Personally, I don't think you can go wrong with Big Sky for this trip. Bozeman is a little pricer/difficult to get to, but the rewards for a big ski area that has everything and moderate to low crowds would offset that IMO.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

I haven't flown to Boise since 1983 but it's similar size to Spokane and served by Southwest so I'd assume comparable.

A recent article from the LA Times about Boise -- I assume that from time to time many places throughout the intermountain west (Bend, Oregon for example) have periods like these where CA transplants are viewed by locals as invaders. FYI about the origin of the name: Boisé in French (pronounced Bwah ZAY) means "wooded/forested."
https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... h-in-boise

Interesting that Southwest flies nonstops from Spokane to Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Diego, but to none of the LA region airports. About ten days ago, the airline ended all service at my home airport EWR and consolidated its NYC operations at LGA. For the moment, only United flies between EWR and Denver. Frontier will start service in March.

 

[EMSC]

For the moment, only United flies between EWR and Denver. Frontier will start service in March.

Interestingly, while I've been through EWR a bunch, I've never left the airport. I've heard it's pretty terrible on the other side of security. Which contrasts with the interior where at least terminal C has been fully renovated and is fairly nice and easy to use - though pricey as heck for food (that terminal is where most of United's flights are. I'm sure it's a shock to everyone I have had status on United a bunch given their Denver hub).

As to Frontier, it's cheap, they mostly get you there; but EWR to DEN is about the max flight distance I would ever do on one of their planes. After 3-3.5 hours I can't handle their horrible seats. But if you need a cheap, quick fix for skiing it might work out OK.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

Interestingly, while I've been through EWR a bunch, I've never left the airport. I've heard it's pretty terrible on the other side of security. Which contrasts with the interior where at least terminal C has been fully renovated and is fairly nice and easy to use - though pricey as heck for food (that terminal is where most of United's flights are. I'm sure it's a shock to everyone I have had status on United a bunch given their Denver hub).

Yes, Terminal C is quite nice after the renovation. With a United Mastercard, you get 20% off restaurants there, which takes some of the sting out of the bill; however, I didn't find it hideously expensive.

Interestingly, while I've been through EWR a bunch, I've never left the airport. I've heard it's pretty terrible on the other side of security.

From the "those in glass houses" folder :-({|= -- based on my trip through there six weeks ago, DIA ain't looking too great either. The entire security area is still torn apart. I'm flying to Denver on Monday and will report back. Hopefully, they've made some progress.

As to Frontier, it's cheap, they mostly get you there; but EWR to DEN is about the max flight distance I would ever do on one of their planes. After 3-3.5 hours I can't handle their horrible seats. But if you need a cheap, quick fix for skiing it might work out OK.

I flew Frontier in the 80s, when it was kinda like a Denver-based version of Continental. I haven't tried them since the transformation into a cheapskate/zero-frills carrier. Since I'm a United flier, I'm looking forward to Frontier's arrival at EWR purely because it'll provide competition and push down fares to Denver and Florida.

 

[sierra_cement]

About ten days ago, the airline ended all service at my home airport EWR and consolidated its NYC operations at LGA. For the moment, only United flies between EWR and Denver. Frontier will start service in March.

I'm sorry for your loss. Frontier also flies to San Jose but their timings and prices to DEN were never any good for my dates.

Far better to redeem Southwest points with their free bags and liberal cancellation policy. Once I forgot to cancel a ticket and I called to get the taxes back, they even refunded the points. I've kinda come to a conclusion it's best to stick to Southwest for my ski trips. It helps that they have a lot of service to ski airports from SJC: DEN, SLC, RNO, BOI, GEG, SEA, PDX.

 

[sierra_cement]

Does Mammoth offer enough of an advantage over Tahoe for people to consider the extra drive?

Yes, when there's a major difference in conditions. There are three scenarios here:
1) Early season if the first storms were mostly rain at Tahoe but snow at Mammoth.
The 2012-13 and 2017-18 seasons were a combination of 1) and 2) for several months.

It seems like this situation is happening right now and Mammoth would be a better choice for a trip next week than Tahoe.

 

[Tony Crocker]

There have been 2 substantial Sierra storms with one more coming this weekend. Only the second storm had any rain and that one mostly below 7,500 feet. So Tahoe is much better off than at this time in 2012 or 2017.

That said we are driving to Tahoe from the Bay Area and Squaw has yet to open any upper terrain. They are doing control work aiming for this weekend but of course the next storm will further delay that opening.

I would expect upper Squaw to be good a week from now when we get a longer break in the weather. But we are skiing just tomorrow before moving on to Mammoth so Mt. Rose seems the right call for that.

Kirkwood should also be good though the logistics for us tomorrow would be a hassle. Currently Cornice is open at Kirkwood but Wall and Sunrise are not. Surely those will be open a week from now and I would guess Tseeb will provide a first hand report soon thereafter.

We will run into that weather at Mammoth. But lots of mid and lower chairs are open and full expansion to Canyon/Eagle is announced for Saturday.

 

[EMSC]

Interestingly, while I've been through EWR a bunch, I've never left the airport. I've heard it's pretty terrible on the other side of security.

From the "those in glass houses" folder :-({|= -- based on my trip through there six weeks ago, DIA ain't looking too great either. The entire security area is still torn apart. I'm flying to Denver on Monday and will report back. Hopefully, they've made some progress.

Somehow forget about this thread.

The answer is DIA's terminal will be horrible for a couple more years. The CEO of DIA ought to be fired but clearly has some sort of blackmail on the Denver City Council. DIA hired a contractor who ripped it apart, then due to DIA demand to change an extra ~$300M+ of change orders that they didn't actually want to pay for, the contractor and DIA went at each other, blah, blah blah. Now the contractor is fired, the 'settlement' to them will probably be $200M and the whole project is delayed by 6-12 months. Based on articles in the paper it's pretty clear it's DIA's fault, not the contractors.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

The answer is DIA's terminal will be horrible for a couple more years. The CEO of DIA ought to be fired but clearly has some sort of blackmail on the Denver City Council. DIA hired a contractor who ripped it apart, then due to DIA demand to change an extra ~$300M+ of change orders that they didn't actually want to pay for, the contractor and DIA went at each other, blah, blah blah.

Hah, sounds exactly like something that would happen at any one of the three NYC airports run by everyone's favorite punching bag, the Port Authority. Oddly enough, massive renovations/rebuilds of terminals at LGA, EWR, and JFK over the last five years have not been sullied by stories like the one at DIA, at least none that I'm aware of. With my new job based partially out of Denver, I'll be seeing plenty of the DIA main terminal. Thankfully, Global Entry minimizes time spent in the security queue.