Is the ski resort model dead?

[EMSC]

Relative to cat skiing and heli-skiing, Silverton is a bargain. I don't think I have the skill level to use the place but I'd love to have something like that with a little less pitch where I could be one of the elite 80 shelling out $139.00 per day for a couple of weeks of skiing endless untracked. I guess I'll have to become rich and buy into Yellowstone Club instead. For now, Chile is my cheap alternative to get lots of untracked with little competition.

I suspect you'd do OK at Silverton. As long as you can ski powder & natural conditions decently. They group folks by self indicated levels and not everyone there is at some sort of a cliff jumping expert level. They have a number of 'runs' that are single diamond. I don't get the feeling that many folks ski there for weeks at a time, more like for a couple days in a row.

 

[Geoff]

I think it easy to say that we are going to be waiting a while and what analyst predict. History often tells a different story. In 80,92, and 99 many analysts predicted that those recessions would take 10 years from which to recover. I don't know how realistic an appraisal can be when speaking about a recession while in it. Emotion plays a large part in how the public reacts to a recession and spending habits, if they begin to feel better, based on even modest gains in employment a recovery could rapidly pick up speed. As of now, the news has been less than great economically. Yet, if history can teach us anything, it would foolhardy to imply that we will be economically stagnant two years from now. Therefore, I think a more realistic approach would be to say, that the resort model has taken a hit for the time being, but as the economy recovers so too will the resort model.

I haven't read through to the end of this thread yet, but this post bears responding to. You pointed out the recessions in 1980, 1990-ish, and 1999. The problem with those examples is that only one of them was the result of a real-estate bubble - the 1990-ish one. 1980 was a functioning of rapid inflation in energy prices and lousy monetary policy while 1999 resulted from the bursting of the tech bubble. In the recession that started in 1989, you did in fact see price decreases in ski resort real estate that lasted for a decade or more. I know prices at Sugarbush didn't recover until the 2000s and many places in California saw big hits, though not lasting as long. Even still, that bubble was a small fry as compared the the one that popped more recently. It will take a lot long to unwind the imbalances that drove the run up in prices in the late 2000s, especially since the demographic trends that previously helped to drive the market will now act as a headwind (no new boomers to buy second homes anymore).

At Killington, real estate prices corrected more in the 1989 bubble than they have in the current bubble. In this one, the correction has only been 20 to 25%. Granted, it's not over yet but there were tons of foreclosures in the early 1990's in the two most troubled condo complexes (Mountain Green and The Woods). I kicked the tires on a few. All real estate markets are local. Markets that were highly overbuilt had the big corrections. There was a ton of building at Killington in the 1980's. Not much was built in the 2000's. Overbuilt places like Florida, Phoenix, and Lost Wages collapsed. The northeast has only seen a mild correction in most places.

I also question your gross oversimplification of the recession of the late-1970's through early 1980's. Everything was inflating at 20%, not just energy. Try buying or selling a house when interest rates are 18%. It was both bad fiscal and monetary policy since the Vietnam war was funded with borrowed money. We repeated that mistake recently. The only reason we don't have hyperinflation this time is that all the government debt is short term this time around so the government can't inflate the Iraq war debt away like they did with Vietnam. The debt would simply roll over into debt that pays a much higher interest rate and chew up the federal budget with huge interest payments.

Anyways..... I think there's still a market for resort real estate at the high end. If you build true ski-in/ski-out that is quality construction with good fit & finish, people will buy it. If you throw up cheap condos on a bus loop, the 2nd and 3rd tier buyers that would buy the lower end stuff are completely out of the market. Joe Sixpack isn't going to be buying timeshares or quartershares. A 35-year-old Orthopedic Surgeon with a couple of young kids will shell out big bucks for slopeside to live the life.

 

[Patrick]

The vast majority of Colorado skier visits don't go to places like that. They drive up I-70 and ski the Vail empire.

The vast majority doesn't like to ski powder and only ski the equivalent one week a year. Again, no one implied that the MRA way was the way to go, but I believe there is a demand for it for a certain minority in which aren't served by the ski resort model.

In colorado more people ski vail because it gets considerably more snow, and has considerably more terrain. All my friends that live in denver go up every week, and get somewhere in the 40 to 50 days a year.

Your friend aren't what I'd call typical skiers and you can't base your analyst on them. How many days does the average American/Canadian skier get in one season, regardless where they live (yes, it's varies from one region to the next (not talking ski towns here). Yes, places like Vail with more snow, more terrain will attract more skiers, I'm not disputing that.

I think your statement isn't grounded in reality as to why the vast majority of Colorado skier visits go to Vail. It also helps that a season pass there is around $699 for all those resorts. There's a ton of value in that.

Agree, but we aren't talking about the same thing are we? As for the reality, I'm just saying that bigger terrain, faster lifts, state of the art snowmaking, smooth grooming, Disneyesque village and condos and cheap passes has a cost to them. A cost to the overall and longterm to overall the ski industry as a whole. Competition between the Ski Resorts has a cost which the consumer isn't seeing...yet. How much debts are these resorts holding? Driving the smaller areas under. Where are the resorts going to be 25 years down the road. Look at what happened to Killington? Ste-Anne used to be Eastern Canada state of the art ski area in the 80s. Now the resort lifts are old. Facilities need a facelift, etc. Where are places like Tremblant going to be in 20 years?

Every towns had their ropetows in the 50s (at least in the Laurentians), so there was a considation of the skiing business with the newer model stuff in the 70s. The ski resort model became the thing, but after 20-30 years of it, what have they learned?

If it didn't make economic sense it wouldn't have become "the thing."

Let's see. How many of the big ones done under or almost? Sorry, I don't know the US ski areas as much, so my examples are more on the Quebec side of the border. Tremblant and a good part of Intrawest, Bromont, Stoneham, Orford, Killington and the whole ASC empire and a few others. Nuf said, none of these mom and pop operations at the time.

Bringing skiing back to the essentials is coming back. Not saying everyone is going to go that way, but I see the ski areas industry going the way the ski sport has done. From the mecanised liftserved skiing on artificial snow groomed trails to a more back to nature skiing where snowmaking, facilities and lifts aren't necessarily as essential. Telemark was dead for how many years before coming back? Prior to that, Cross-country skiing got a rebirth after being virtually being dead once the lifts started showing up.

Snowmaking in the east coast is essential for 99.9% of the paying public. If you like ski seasons where the good terrain can open in january and can be closed by the first week of april... well, let's put it this way, you'll be traveling far and long to keep your streak going.

Most years I could ski from October to July on 100% Natural snow in the East, so the travelling far and long to keep your streak going comment is totally irrelevant. I go ski artificial snow more than some, but I do like a variety of experiences. I've grown to dislike resort à la Tremblant, some people like it, I don't. Why haven't I been back to Whistler since 96? Why do I like some Patagonia ski areas over places around Santiago? All a matter of taste and preference. Yeah, I'm in a minority, but more and more people that have skied their whole life have grown tired of the urbanization of the skiing experience. It might make sense for some of you, but when I ski, I want to get away. Get away from people, people on their cellphones and blackberries. I love big cities and can't stand suburbia, but once in the mountains, I want to find the country. I know I'm not alone and some people have realized that and trying to carve a niche in the ski area business. Okay, I need to get my skis with touring bindings tonight at MEC.

 

[Geoff]

Relative to cat skiing and heli-skiing, Silverton is a bargain. I don't think I have the skill level to use the place but I'd love to have something like that with a little less pitch where I could be one of the elite 80 shelling out $139.00 per day for a couple of weeks of skiing endless untracked. I guess I'll have to become rich and buy into Yellowstone Club instead. For now, Chile is my cheap alternative to get lots of untracked with little competition.

I suspect you'd do OK at Silverton. As long as you can ski powder & natural conditions decently. They group folks by self indicated levels and not everyone there is at some sort of a cliff jumping expert level. They have a number of 'runs' that are single diamond. I don't get the feeling that many folks ski there for weeks at a time, more like for a couple days in a row.

I'm just fine in powder. I have a flaw in my technique I constantly fight where I break at the waist. On true steeps where I'm intimidated, it shows up and I can't absorb anything. In my sidecountry skiing, mostly in Chile, I have always tried to keep it to 30 degrees.... partly because I know my limitations at understanding snow safety.... partly because I fall apart at things much steeper than 35 degrees. For example somewhere I know you ski, I'm right near my limit in waist deep in the tigher spots of Salto Glades at Eldora. I think that's about 30 degrees in the trees at the steepest spots. There will be spots where I can't mentally commit to the fall line but I can still link most of my turns. I'm OK somewhat steeper than that in deep untracked when it's wide open. As an easterner, it's hard to let your skis run in powder on steeps because you have a lifetime of experience that tells you there are ice bumps underneath it.

 

[Geoff]

Agree, but we aren't talking about the same thing are we? As for the reality, I'm just saying that bigger terrain, faster lifts, state of the art snowmaking, smooth grooming, Disneyesque village and condos and cheap passes has a cost to them. A cost to the overall and longterm to overall the ski industry as a whole. Competition between the Ski Resorts has a cost which the consumer isn't seeing...yet. How much debts are these resorts holding? Driving the smaller areas under. Where are the resorts going to be 25 years down the road. Look at what happened to Killington? Ste-Anne used to be Eastern Canada state of the art ski area in the 80s. Now the resort lifts are old. Facilities need a facelift, etc. Where are places like Tremblant going to be in 20 years?

I see a totally failed analysis here. Since you brought it up.... Let's look at what happened at Killington in more detail. Preston Smith founded Killington in the late 1950's and expanded it constantly to the point where it was the largest ski resort in the east. He sold it in the mid-1990's to a company that didn't understand finance and didn't understand how to profitably develop real estate. At the ASC initial public offering, Les Otten only put 49% of the company up for sale and kept 51% to himself. He strapped the company with high interest debt instead of raising enough capital to retire most of that debt. The debt was junk bonds at 12% or higher interest rates. ASC was chewed alive with high interest payments. This has nothing to do with "ski resort model". It's lousy finance. The Texas money guys investing H.L. Hunt oil money turned a defaulted ASC junk bond into all the developable land at the bottom of Killington. A couple of years later, they basically stole Killington from the ASC portfolio as ASC was liquidating it since no other buyer would buy the ski resort without the land. The Texas boys then stripped the remaining land away from Killington and unloaded the ski resort operation business on the parent company of Park City Mountain Resort. The result has been disasterous since the Texas interest in the real estate is totally decoupled from the Utah interest in the ski area operation. If one corporation owned both the land and the ski resort operation, I think you would see totally different behavior.

I think the proper comparison for Tremblant is Disney. Disneyworld is old. They make their money by selling tickets to get into the theme park. Once in the theme park, people are captive so they make money selling them food and beverage. Those same people often call the Disney 800 number or use the Disney web site to make reservations at hotels where Disney skims a big chunk of money off the top. There is a side real estate development business where Disney builds hotels & condos and sells them to the tourons. Since the theme park region southwest of Orlando is so overbuilt, there's not much development going on. Disney constantly updates the theme park and it prints money. The real estate gravy train has stopped but the theme park is still being maintained and updated. If it went to seed, people would stop going there and the business would fail. SInce Disney is very well managed, that doesn't happen.

 

[Patrick]

I knew you were the expert of Killington. Without knowing the exact details about Kiilngton troubles, but they did have troubles. Could have happened anywhere, right? The needed some serious money to become what they became, regardless of the way they available it.

You are correct, my Disney comparision was related to Tremblant.

Disney is one thing...a Disneyesque ski resort like Tremblant's is another. You are over estimating the stability and issues that Tremblant are and will be facing in the future. Although Ste-Anne isn't Tremblant or Intrawest, their facilities have aged and they lost their edge in the market as a state-of-the-art resort. Other resorts that have followed the 'model' in trying to remain relavent as a prime destinations in their markets, however sometimes they got over their heads in debt.

Sure, everyone wants the latest car, a big house with a bunch of stuff inside, but can they afford it is another issue.

 

[Marc_C]

Disney is one thing...a Disneyesque ski resort like Tremblant's is another. You are over estimating the stability and issues that Tremblant are and will be facing in the future. Although Ste-Anne isn't Tremblant or Intrawest, their facilities have aged and they lost their edge in the market as a state-of-the-art resort. Other resorts that have followed the 'model' in trying to remain relavent as a prime destinations in their markets, however sometimes they got over their heads in debt.

You seem to be making the assumption that the primary competition a ski area faces is other ski areas. It's not. Destination ski areas are competing against all other entities that are vying for disposable vacation dollars.

 

[Patrick]

You seem to be making the assumption that the primary competition a ski area faces is other ski areas. It's not. Destination ski areas are competing against all other entities that are vying for disposable vacation dollars.

I agree that the Tremblant is in competition with the Cruise ships, Disney World, Universal Studios of this World. The problem that Tremblant (and others will face) is that it's a primary ski destination. Without the skiing, why would you don't there, right? What will happen when you skiers become less numerous? What will the value of those condos/timeshares be worth then? What will happen when the ski areas will need major renovation/facelift of their installations? Everything was build within a 5-10 years window. Where will they get that type of cash infusing again? That is the dilemna that Ste-Anne faces now. They can recreated and rebuild a village again? If they did, where would they find the people to buy in at a ski area, especially when the boomer while no longer skis or so few of them (remember, I'm talking in 25 years)? I've talked about the Canadian Demography someone above.

 

[Geoff]

Disney is one thing...a Disneyesque ski resort like Tremblant's is another. You are over estimating the stability and issues that Tremblant are and will be facing in the future. Although Ste-Anne isn't Tremblant or Intrawest, their facilities have aged and they lost their edge in the market as a state-of-the-art resort. Other resorts that have followed the 'model' in trying to remain relavent as a prime destinations in their markets, however sometimes they got over their heads in debt.

You seem to be making the assumption that the primary competition a ski area faces is other ski areas. It's not. Destination ski areas are competing against all other entities that are vying for disposable vacation dollars.

Exactly. And there are poorly run cruise ship lines that are now in financial trouble. Theme parks go under all the time.

The problem with many ski resorts is that the people who run them are not top tier business people. Like any other business, it's quite Darwinian. If you screw up and people stop coming to your resort, the business fails. Killington under ASC those last few years and under POWDR the last four is a poster child for taking a prosperous business and trashing it. Boyne operates Sugarloaf, Sunday River, and Loon. They figured out how to drop their capital cost down to zero by having a Florida REIT actually own the resorts. They're doing quite well. ASC choked on debt and died. POWDR is private so nobody has any visibility into why they've made the decisions they have made.

 

[rfarren]

What will happen when you skiers become less numerous? What will the value of those condos/timeshares be worth then? What will happen when the ski areas will need major renovation/facelift of their installations? Everything was build within a 5-10 years window. Where will they get that type of cash infusing again? That is the dilemna that Ste-Anne faces now. They can recreated and rebuild a village again? If they did, where would they find the people to buy in at a ski area, especially when the boomer while no longer skis or so few of them (remember, I'm talking in 25 years)? I've talked about the Canadian Demography someone above.

Your assumption presupposes that skier visits will decrease, which isn't guaranteed (I know your pop. argument as far as canada is concerned, but tremblant isn't just frequented by the quebecoise). Furthermore, why would they need to rebuild or recreate the village? The village has been built, and won't need to be rebuilt. The major infrastructure cost will be based on maintenance. If a few building need be rebuilt while others need a facelift the cost will be a fraction compared to building a new village from scratch. The same goes for on hill facilities. Unless a new technology for lifts comes around that completely changes what customers expect there will be no need to replace the lifts for a long time.

BTW, Mont Tremblant is not even in the same league as Mt Ste-Anne in terms of exposure, at least here in NYC. Tremblant I believe is much more of a destination resort for people around here as opposed to a "locals mountain." It is much closer to many of the major metropolitan areas in the North East. I could be wrong, but Mt. Ste-Anne is more of a locals mountain due to it's location. It's close to Quebec City, but other than that, it's fairly isolated.

 

[Patrick]

I'm about to leave work...so here is a few quick replies...

Your assumption presupposes that skier visits will decrease, which isn't guaranteed (I know your pop. argument as far as canada is concerned, but tremblant isn't just frequented by the quebecoise).

Basic demography. Unless the ski industry in the US (but I believe that they expect a decline in the next 15-20 years). I've read this somewhere, don't recall where.

Furthermore, why would they need to rebuild or recreate the village? The village has been built, and won't need to be rebuilt.

A good chunk of the cash has been through the development of new phases.

The major infrastructure cost will be based on maintenance.

See below and MSA.

BTW, Mont Tremblant is not even in the same league as Mt Ste-Anne in terms of exposure, at least here in NYC. Tremblant I believe is much more of a destination resort for people around here as opposed to a "locals mountain." It is much closer to many of the major metropolitan areas in the North East. I could be wrong, but Mt. Ste-Anne is more of a locals mountain due to it's location. It's close to Quebec City, but other than that, it's fairly isolated.

[/quote][/quote]

Isolated, Sugarloaf is isolated.

Seriously, if you go back to the mid 1980s. Ste-Anne was the major ski destination in Eastern Canada and had the explosure, bypassing Tremblant that had gone under (or almost). Ste-Anne was modern, base lodging, a newly replaced gondola, hosted the World Cup races. Tremblant was a shadow of itself and had fallen behind in the 70s, until Intrawest arrived in the early90s and totally redid and remarketed the place. Since then, Tremblant has come back to being the Eastern destination it had in the 40-50-60s while Mont Ste-Anne lifts and infrastructures have aged and fallen behind. MSA is part of the RCR group which also owns Lake Louise, Fernie, Kimberley, Nakiska and Stoneham (locally).

If you go back far enough, you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur and other Lower Laurentians molehills including Gray Rocks in the Upper Laurentians.

 

[soulskier]

The problem with many ski resorts is that the people who run them are not top tier business people. Like any other business, it's quite Darwinian. If you screw up and people stop coming to your resort, the business fails. Killington under ASC those last few years and under POWDR the last four is a poster child for taking a prosperous business and trashing it. Boyne operates Sugarloaf, Sunday River, and Loon. They figured out how to drop their capital cost down to zero by having a Florida REIT actually own the resorts. They're doing quite well. ASC choked on debt and died. POWDR is private so nobody has any visibility into why they've made the decisions they have made.

I think the problem is people running the ski resorts are not skiers. I feel a large disconnect between the ski area decision makers and us skiers and riders.

Again, I will site the heated seated chairlift at Canyons. I am curious to know what the % of general public really cares, and if Canyons will see an increase in skier visits as a result.

 

[Geoff]

Seriously, if you go back to the mid 1980s. Ste-Anne was the major ski destination in Eastern Canada and had the explosure, bypassing Tremblant that had gone under (or almost). Ste-Anne was modern, base lodging, a newly replaced gondola, hosted the World Cup races. Tremblant was a shadow of itself and had fallen behind in the 70s, until Intrawest arrived in the early90s and totally redid and remarketed the place. Since then, Tremblant has come back to being the Eastern destination it had in the 40-50-60s while Mont Ste-Anne lifts and infrastructures have aged and fallen behind. MSA is part of the RCR group which also owns Lake Louise, Fernie, Kimberley, Nakiska and Stoneham (locally).

If you go back far enough, you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur and other Lower Laurentians molehills including Gray Rocks in the Upper Laurentians.

I grew up skiing in the 1960's. From southern New England and NYC, Quebec was invisible. Your assertion that "you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur" is laughable. From Boston, people skied North Conway since that had the best road access. Once the interstate highways were built, that made Vermont accessible. Don't forget how unreliable cars were back then and what the roads were like prior to the interstate highway system. From Boston or New York, Stowe was a real adventure of a drive. You really think anybody drove to Quebec to go skiing?

 

[Patrick]

If you go back far enough, you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur and other Lower Laurentians molehills including Gray Rocks in the Upper Laurentians.

I grew up skiing in the 1960's. From southern New England and NYC, Quebec was invisible. Your assertion that "you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur" is laughable. From Boston, people skied North Conway since that had the best road access. Once the interstate highways were built, that made Vermont accessible. Don't forget how unreliable cars were back then and what the roads were like prior to the interstate highway system. From Boston or New York, Stowe was a real adventure of a drive. You really think anybody drove to Quebec to go skiing?

:roll:

Invisible? You are underestimating my background and knowledge on the matter. [-X Who were the skiers skiing in the Lower Laurentians in the 30s and 40s? We are talking about the ski train days pre-autoroute/interstates that started in the late 50s and throughout the 60s. The first ski trains in North America were in Quebec. I've read enough on the ski history and did some research on the subject prior more than 10 years ago to know one thing or too. Quebec ski areas, many of which have disappeared now, would go down to the New York and Boston ski shows in those years in order to attract Americans. Until fairly the 80-90s, many of the clients at Gray Rocks were from south of the border. My source isn't one book, but from a few different sources, often from many American.

 

[Geoff]

If you go back far enough, you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur and other Lower Laurentians molehills including Gray Rocks in the Upper Laurentians.

I grew up skiing in the 1960's. From southern New England and NYC, Quebec was invisible. Your assertion that "you had American leaving from Boston and NYC to ski Mont St-Sauveur" is laughable. From Boston, people skied North Conway since that had the best road access. Once the interstate highways were built, that made Vermont accessible. Don't forget how unreliable cars were back then and what the roads were like prior to the interstate highway system. From Boston or New York, Stowe was a real adventure of a drive. You really think anybody drove to Quebec to go skiing?

:roll:

Invisible? You are underestimating my background and knowledge on the matter. [-X Who were the skiers skiing in the Lower Laurentians in the 30s and 40s? We are talking about the ski train days pre-autoroute/interstates that started in the late 50s and throughout the 60s. The first ski trains in North America were in Quebec. I've read enough on the ski history and did some research on the subject prior more than 10 years ago to know one thing or too. Quebec ski areas, many of which have disappeared now, would go down to the New York and Boston ski shows in those years in order to attract Americans. Until fairly the 80-90s, many of the clients at Gray Rocks were from south of the border. My source isn't one book, but from a few different sources, often from many American.

Yeah, a few hundred skier visits on a ski train back in the 1930's. BFD. Tell me somthing that matters.

 

[Marc_C]

I think the problem is people running the ski resorts are not skiers. I feel a large disconnect between the ski area decision makers and us skiers and riders.

Again, I will site the heated seated chairlift at Canyons. I am curious to know what the % of general public really cares, and if Canyons will see an increase in skier visits as a result.

A quick, informal poll this afternoon of about 20 self identified skiers in my office generated a 75% favorable response. Six even said *every* chair-lift should be heated.
(Reminder: this is Utah - a lot of locals don't ski if it's below 15F 'cause it's too cold.)

The Canyons is about a 30 minute drive from my office front door.

 

[Patrick]

Yeah, a few hundred skier visits on a ski train back in the 1930's. BFD. Tell me somthing that matters.

I don't have the exact number, but it was enough to make these ski areas work. This goes back to the initial debate, you don't need to cater to the masses, but these Americans regardless of the number helped keep the areas afloat. How many people skied back then? That tradition continued into the 40s and 50s...maybe into the 60s and 70s in some places. The Kennedys and a few other vip would ski at places like Gray Rocks.

The Villa Bellevue and other lodging places with their own ski school would buy ads in the New York Times and other US major publications.

 

[soulskier]

I think the problem is people running the ski resorts are not skiers. I feel a large disconnect between the ski area decision makers and us skiers and riders.

Again, I will site the heated seated chairlift at Canyons. I am curious to know what the % of general public really cares, and if Canyons will see an increase in skier visits as a result.

A quick, informal poll this afternoon of about 20 self identified skiers in my office generated a 75% favorable response. Six even said *every* chair-lift should be heated.
(Reminder: this is Utah - a lot of locals don't ski if it's below 15F 'cause it's too cold.)

The Canyons is about a 30 minute drive from my office front door.

Thanks for the quick straw poll.

 

[rfarren]

Your assumption presupposes that skier visits will decrease, which isn't guaranteed (I know your pop. argument as far as canada is concerned, but tremblant isn't just frequented by the quebecoise).

Basic demography. Unless the ski industry in the US (but I believe that they expect a decline in the next 15-20 years). I've read this somewhere, don't recall where.

I would imagine that the ski industry will need to expand the percentage of the population that skis to stay viable. The number of people that ski now in terms of percentage of population must be greater than ever before (although, admittedly I don't know that). What's to say that the sport's popularity won't continue to grow in the future?

 

[rfarren]

Yeah, a few hundred skier visits on a ski train back in the 1930's. BFD. Tell me somthing that matters.

I don't have the exact number, but it was enough to make these ski areas work. This goes back to the initial debate, you don't need to cater to the masses, but these Americans regardless of the number helped keep the areas afloat. How many people skied back then? That tradition continued into the 40s and 50s...maybe into the 60s and 70s in some places. The Kennedys and a few other vip would ski at places like Gray Rocks.

The Villa Bellevue and other lodging places with their own ski school would buy ads in the New York Times and other US major publications.

Would you prefer that skiing was only for those who live in the mountains or the super wealthy? By not catering to the masses you will marginalize the sport, and that I can promise you would be bad for business.


I would also argue that those ski trains to quebec were more analogous to destination skiing trips to europe or out west nowadays.