Is the ski resort model dead?

[Marc_C]

What I do believe is that skiing has become mostly a rich man's sport...

Become? Skiing has *always* been a rich man's sport. The unique thing that your idealistic blinders prevent you from seeing is that it's actually far cheaper now than 30, 40, or 50 years ago.

I wouldn't call $90 lift tickets, $12 cheeseburgers, $15 for parking cheap. As I recall, the first time I skied at Alta the lift ticket was in the low 20's. Now it's more than 3 times that.

What? You're actually making that comparison without taking median annual income into account and adjusting for inflation and cost of living? Seriously?? That's what I mean about the absolute naivete of your statements.
And implying that Alta has a $90 lift ticket is blatantly dishonest.

When Alta's lift ticket was in the low $20's, a typical home was well under $50K and a good salary was $12K. And people *still* couldn't afford to go skiing.

I've got nothing against the concept of the MRA, but the arguments you're using for the basis just don't have any rational grounding in economic reality. I think the crap that you're getting here is due to the numeric paucity of your position, perhaps the result of a granola based ideology.

BTW, I once had a $50 cheeseburger - combo of ground veal and ground braised short ribs, with a center of seared foie gras and a goodly bit of shaved black truffles with a port reduction sauce. It was served with a ragout of wild mushrooms and a pea & leek risotto with a drizzle of 75 year old balsamic vinegar. It was spectacular! Too bad it wasn't at a ski area.

When I go to Deer Valley, I budget an hour and a half and $30 for the spectacular lunch - definitely part of the attraction. That and the untouched powder in the off-trail woods. And I just loved the base village at Whistler - nice shops to browse in while trying to decide among the plethora of excellent restaurants for the evening. Kinda reminded me of Zermatt. Good people watching too. Crusty dirtbag locals providing "soul" and spraying about what they skied that day??? F-that!!!

Oh yeah, in case you didn't know - I live 20 minutes from Alta, buy an AltaBird pass each year, typically get in about 60-70 days or so, and often hike for stuff (despite having a 'LIFT" pass). When Alta put in the Collins HSDQ, I was really hoping they'd put the old Germania chair to good use - like up the center of Devil's Castle or to the top of East Castle.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Going back to the Mammoth case study, I started skiing there in the early 80's. 30 years later, with the exception of chair 22 (without it would be a 5 minute hike), there has been no terrain expansion, only many more lifts to bring the people to the same slopes. IMO, the overall ski experience has actually diminished due to skier traffic on the slopes. Again, I am not interested in fancy mid mountain lodges and $12 cheeseburgers, perfectly manicured groomers and 5 star lodging experiences. I (and many others) main focus is the skiing, specifically untracked snow and uncrowded slopes. I understand Mammoth had to expand to keep up with the client demand. As a result, that's one less cool ski area available for my generation and type of skiing style.

I've been skiing Mammoth regularly since 1978 and I take issue with much of this. Mammoth had 1.4 million skier days in 1982 and 1986, and barely surpassed that peak in 2005 and 2006. Has the skier experience diminished? Not IMHO. The face of chair 3 is the only place I've seen a negative impact from higher skier density, and that only in late season. When it was a double the liftline was unacceptable on weekends after ~10AM. I think a fixed quad might have been a better move there, but the other lift upgrades have had no downside IMHO. Yeah the powder gets tracked faster now, but a lot of that is equipment. Good luck skiing many runs in the Sierra Cement or windblown on 1980's gear for most of us.

With regard to cost my son Adam has a share in a ski house and the MVP; I calculated his lift/lodging/transportation cost at $37/day in 2009-10. Staley even undercuts that, so no question the young financially challenged skiers and riders in SoCal are far better off today than when I was their age. As soulskier probably knows, Mammoth's village has not been a success. It's still a weekend commuter market, and most of those people are content in the older and cheaper 1970's vintage condos.

What? You're actually making that comparison without taking median annual income into account and adjusting for inflation and cost of living?

I'll take a stab at that.
Lift tickets: Now segmented to nail price insensitive weekend/holiday skiers but season pass, coupon books etc. keep costs similar or in some cases like Mammoth and I-70 Colorado cheaper for locals who can take advantage.
Equipment: My guess is similar, but most "gear sluts" these days are actively ferreting out deals/swapping slightly used gear online, probably getting more bang for the buck than in the less efficient marketplace 30 years ago.
Clothing, accessories: Much cheaper, look at the tags where they are made, even the high end stuff.
Lodging: Probably up more than inflation in resorts. There are still options like SLC to go cheap if that's important to you.
Air transport: Much cheaper than before deregulation in the late 1970's.
Gas: the 2008 price spike barely exceeded the 1981 peak inflation adjusted. Gas was much cheaper only pre-1973.

One area that is significantly inflated is childrens' day care and ski school. In terms of long range planning I think resorts would be smart to subsidize these operations.

At any rate, we have the strong skier visit numbers from 2009-10, and I think we baby boomers are old enough now that the growth is coming from the younger generation.

I think Skip Kings discussion essentially in defense of the large resorts is pretty well stated.

However, way back in soulskiers initial MRA post I stated my general sense that he can survive as a small guy built mostly (not entirely) on the supposed wish list of items. It doesn't have to be only one way and one model for every ski sliding experience IMO. But there are a lot of complications going the way MRA is and soulskier will have to make very diligent choices to survive and will even have to be willing to compromise on some of the wish list (which pieces are somewhat specific to the location, etc... while others not so much).

That said, I think the hard reaction on these boards are related mostly to the MRA 'dictum' that the entire ski industry has it all wrong and none of the big resorts can or will ever survive, etc... Sorry not buying it. There is a place for several versions of business model in the industry, predicated on different sub markets, geographies and other particulars. Vail and Whistler aren't going away. I'm not quite sure why several posters seem to be only for the big resort model and poo-poo the entirety of soulskiers ideas; and also not sure why soulskier thinks that the big resort model is 100% dead and will never survive in any similar form. I suspect to some degree that both models will survive for some time to come. But with the vast majority of skiers going to the big resorts with many amenities and the small MRA types scratching out an OK living; I highly doubt the MRA model will suddenly proliferate into dozens of new ski areas nor in de-constructing the big resorts back to the 'olden days' either.

Why exactly does it have to be only one or the other model?

An excellent summation on all points IMHO. =D>

I have always been an advocate of diversity in ski experiences. There are quite a few of these minimalist but interesting ski areas in the West, as noted before (add Bridger Bowl and Sundance to the list). That's why I've urged soulskier to study them closely. I suspect he'll find, as rfarren noted, that they are still businesses that have to make economic decisions to survive on a sustainable basis.

...Big on mountain

can mean considerable patrol/avy control expense. When I was at Pomerelle, the manager giving me the tour noted some enticing bowls behind the area and commented on both the development and maintenance cost if they were to expand. "Our niche is ski instruction for local families and the schoolkids. If we developed that we wouldn't have $35 lift tickets anymore." It was noted here at ISSW that if you're a small area with big mountain terrain like Mt. Rose or Bridger Bowl you have to meet the same standards of avy control as the big places like Whistler/Mammoth/AltaBird.

soulskier is treading awfully close to pinko commie fag territory.

It doesn't really matter whether it's left-wing or right-wing. The ski business is not easy. It you try to run it on the basis of ideology you are likely to fail. The energy issue is Exhibit A. Talk to the ski area owners and I'll bet you find that conservation/energy efficiency is real important, but that energy production is uneconomic except for some rare situations.

 

[rfarren]

The Village at Squaw Valley is a typical Intrawest Village, which looks and feels similar to Mammoth and Whistler (and likely others that I have not visited). The shops are on the ground floor with hotel rooms and suites on the second and above levels. (In a truly sustainable village, both the shop owners and patrons live in the village. In the Intrawest model, the guests and the employees all have to commute to the mountain playground).

Most towns in the world are not like this, let's not be unrealistically idealistic. Most towns aren't pedestrianized either. I'm sorry the vibe and town (a couple rickety buildings) at Squaw were ruined. :lol:
Listen, my wife loves whistler. You know why? The skiing is good, but she loves the town, the nightlife, and restaurants and the shops. I think it's great that these resorts are giving options for people other than just skiing. It allows me to go on a ski vacation with loved ones, even if they aren't big skiers. I'm sorry but her idea of ski vacation isn't staying at an econolodge outside a village with "some older buildings and a huge parking lot." It's certainly not going to some "funky bars" and avoiding three day old corn in some hippy's dirty beard.

I was more referring to a family that wants to take a ski vacation. Do the math, it's a small fortune with rentals, lessons, lodging, flights/gas money and full priced lift tickets. It's true season pass prices has come down in some areas, but most everything else at ski resorts has increased significantly.

It's not much more expensive when you consider inflation. Furthermore, airline tickets are about as cheap as they've ever been. Flying used to be the most expensive part of the vacation, in fact prohibitively expensive. I would argue when you look at the ski vacation as a whole (airfare+ the rest), it's nowadays as cheap as it's ever been. Also, those villages you so despise mean families needn't rent cars, which also saves money.

IMO, reduced season passes are not necessarily a good thing, because now many more people are passholders, thus decreasing the overall ski experience. (When Squaw dropped their pass prices, they were rumored to have sold 8 times as many passes as the year before). Personally,I'd rather pay $500 more per season and have way less skier traffic on the mountain.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? =D> First it's too expensive, now it's too cheap, so there are too many people skiing!!! You come off as quite the elitist in this.

It sounds as if your business model is: dirty hippies get a mountain in the MRA model. There is no village at the base, so tourist don't come. Locals don't come because the season lift tix are too expensive and the few owners want to control crowds... MRA goes under. Hippies complain that the price of living in a van is too expensive since the corporate company that took over the mountain started charging for parking....

Seriously though, if you want empty mountains it's time for you to get AT bindings and do what Icelantic does.

 

[Marc_C]

Seriously though, if you want empty mountains it's time for you to get AT bindings and do what Icelantic does.

+10

 

[J.Spin]

Seriously though, if you want empty mountains it's time for you to get AT bindings and do what Icelantic does.

I’ve been waiting for this comment since around page 2 of the discussion, but haven’t really had the time to do more than simply read along, so I’m glad that rfarren brought it up. Going with a lift-served model seems to be one of the big problems here because the economics don’t make sense in delivering what the typical MRA skier would want. Based on the specialized/elite ski crowd that seems to be targeted with this venture anyway, the participants should really just suck it up and earn their turns – at least in the short to medium range if not indefinitely. This clearly seems to be working for Lodge Theory – they don’t need snowmaking, lifts, tickets, etc. It’s potentially another model that MRA could follow. Why not simply buy/lease some land and do the Lodge Theory thing for a decade or so, and if things go well then think about a lift. Of course lift access is only going to cost more money and ruin the untracked snow that everyone is looking for anyway. Just go with some nice efficient, reliable skin tracks that make the process of human-powered ascent easier for everyone. Sticking to terrain that doesn’t need to be controlled for avalanches is probably a good thing to do at first as well, unless there is access to free control. Once there are any substantial bills to pay, it’s just going to mean increased pressure to turn the ski area into what MRA is trying to avoid. Earning turns is also attractive if MRA really wants to minimize ecological/environmental impact. Not that I’m any less guilty than the next guy in terms of using lifts or other mechanical ascent aids, but let’s face it, aren’t these aids really just a function of our own greed for more turns than we probably deserve? If MRA wants to get closer to the purity of the ski experience, and also minimize ecological/environmental impact, earned turns might be the way to go.

 

[Patrick]

Seriously though, if you want empty mountains it's time for you to get AT bindings and do what Icelantic does.

+10

I never meet soulskier, but I'm pretty sure that he owns AT bindings and I would prefer having his skiing experiences versus Marc_C and rfarren. :lol:

J, don't you see a minimal approach/compromise between pure earn-your-turns approach to a ski area like Shames were there is minimal lifts that access bigger terrain (mentioned the place as I've been there before)?

I see it.

 

[Marc_C]

I never meet soulskier, but I'm pretty sure that he owns AT bindings and I would prefer having his skiing experiences versus Marc_C and rfarren. :lol:

Good. Means you're not competing with us for powder or a seat at a good restaurant.
I'm certain my ski experiences are far poorer quality ....

Alta, Main Chute, June 2010

 

[Admin]

Hey, I resemble that guy!

 

[J.Spin]

J, don't you see a minimal approach/compromise between pure earn-your-turns approach to a ski area like Shames where there is minimal lifts that access bigger terrain (mentioned the place as I've been there before)? I see it.

I think places like Shames are awesome, and I want to go to them. I just continue to get the impression in these threads that there are already questions of economic viability at that level, and the MRA model seems even more extreme. Something without the cost of lifts might make for an easier starting point.

 

[soulskier]

I wouldn't call $90 lift tickets, $12 cheeseburgers, $15 for parking cheap. As I recall, the first time I skied at Alta the lift ticket was in the low 20's. Now it's more than 3 times that.
What? You're actually making that comparison without taking median annual income into account and adjusting for inflation and cost of living? Seriously?? That's what I mean about the absolute naivete of your statements.
And implying that Alta has a $90 lift ticket is blatantly dishonest.

I was referencing Alta's $69 ticket, if I included the bird, it would be closer to 4.5 to 1.

When Alta's lift ticket was in the low $20's, a typical home was well under $50K and a good salary was $12K. And people *still* couldn't afford to go skiing.

I've got nothing against the concept of the MRA, but the arguments you're using for the basis just don't have any rational grounding in economic reality. I think the crap that you're getting here is due to the numeric paucity of your position, perhaps the result of a granola based ideology.

We have many examples of ways we will greatly reduce operating costs from a normal ski area. When I have more time, I will be happy to share our granola economy with you.

BTW, I once had a $50 cheeseburger - combo of ground veal and ground braised short ribs, with a center of seared foie gras and a goodly bit of shaved black truffles with a port reduction sauce. It was served with a ragout of wild mushrooms and a pea & leek risotto with a drizzle of 75 year old balsamic vinegar. It was spectacular! Too bad it wasn't at a ski area.

That's great, I lived in Argentina for the last 5 years, home to the best meat on the planet. So what's your point?

When I go to Deer Valley, I budget an hour and a half and $30 for the spectacular lunch - definitely part of the attraction. That and the untouched powder in the off-trail woods. And I just loved the base village at Whistler - nice shops to browse in while trying to decide among the plethora of excellent restaurants for the evening. Kinda reminded me of Zermatt. Good people watching too. Crusty dirtbag locals providing "soul" and spraying about what they skied that day??? F-that!!!

Between scheduling 90 minutes during your ski day for lunch and sharing an office with 75% of people that want heated chairlifts, you clearly aren't the demographic MRA will be targeting.


Oh yeah, in case you didn't know - I live 20 minutes from Alta, buy an AltaBird pass each year, typically get in about 60-70 days or so, and often hike for stuff (despite having a 'LIFT" pass). When Alta put in the Collins HSDQ, I was really hoping they'd put the old Germania chair to good use - like up the center of Devil's Castle or to the top of East Castle.

Do you know what did they do with the old chair?

 

[soulskier]

I've been skiing Mammoth regularly since 1978 and I take issue with much of this. Mammoth had 1.4 million skier days in 1982 and 1986, and barely surpassed that peak in 2005 and 2006. Has the skier experience diminished? Not IMHO. The face of chair 3 is the only place I've seen a negative impact from higher skier density, and that only in late season. When it was a double the liftline was unacceptable on weekends after ~10AM. I think a fixed quad might have been a better move there, but the other lift upgrades have had no downside IMHO. Yeah the powder gets tracked faster now, but a lot of that is equipment. Good luck skiing many runs in the Sierra Cement or windblown on 1980's gear for most of us.

Since your a numbers guy, let's put it in this context. Back in 1982, can you tell me what the uphill capacity was at Mammoth? Today's capacity is around 50,000 skiers/hour. The difference between the two is how many more people can be on the same slopes. Since terrain has not expanded one bit, that's a lot more people on the same slope at the same time

...Big on mountain

It was noted here at ISSW that if you're a small area with big mountain terrain like Mt. Rose or Bridger Bowl you have to meet the same standards of avy control as the big places like Whistler/Mammoth/AltaBird.

Wow, a thousand snow scientists at a conference concluded that? I hope you guys had time left over to talk about depth hoar as well.

Obviously if you have real terrain, you need to have a comprehensive avalanche program to protect the area and skiers/riders.


It doesn't really matter whether it's left-wing or right-wing. The ski business is not easy. It you try to run it on the basis of ideology you are likely to fail. The energy issue is Exhibit A. Talk to the ski area owners and I'll bet you find that conservation/energy efficiency is real important, but that energy production is uneconomic except for some rare situations.

The biggest costs for most ski areas are electricity, payroll, insurance and avalanche mitigation. I believe the key to the 21st century business model is to reduce the overhead while creating a great on-mountain ski experience. In the case of energy, as mentioned before, if a ski area creates more energy than it consumes, then the electricity is no longer a liability, but an asset.

 

[soulskier]

I never meet soulskier, but I'm pretty sure that he owns AT bindings and I would prefer having his skiing experiences versus Marc_C and rfarren. :lol:

Good. Means you're not competing with us for powder or a seat at a good restaurant.
I'm certain my ski experiences are far poorer quality ....

Alta, Main Chute, June 2010

Thanks for sharing. You should consider keeping you shoulders square to the fall line and not drag the uphill hand, it will really help in steeper terrain.

 

[Marc_C]

That's great, I lived in Argentina for the last 5 years, home to the best meat on the planet. So what's your point?

You seem to whine about the cost of food a lot. I was pointing out that what you think expensive can easily be worth it.

Between scheduling 90 minutes during your ski day for lunch and sharing an office with 75% of people that want heated chairlifts, you clearly aren't the demographic MRA will be targeting.

I don't care that I'm not the target demographic. But I'd suggest as others have that the elitist nature of MRA as you've described it has significant risk of being such a small demographic that it cannot sustain itself economically.

As far as the heated seats that everyone here rolls their eyes at, I don't particularly care one way or the other, but based on my quick office straw poll, it may be far more favorably received than you think it might (or should). That may not be your desired demographic, but you have no right to denigrate anyone for that.

The point of the comment about 90 minute lunches at DV is that the food is so damned good it's not only worthwhile, it's one of the attractions. I wish other ski areas would take the hint. Snowbasin does pretty well in the food dept. as well, second only to DV in Utah IMO. BTW, it's not unusual for our Alta crew to spend 90 minutes at lunch at The Rustler Lodge when we ski Alta - this includes Admin, Bobby Dangerous, Tele Jon, et al. When you live under 30 minutes away and have a season pass, it's no big deal.

Do you know what did they do with the old chair?

Alta sold both the Germania triple and old Collins double to other ski areas. I don't recall who.

 

[Marc_C]

[.img]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_pC74L8-zEC0/TMIeWHqfdSI/AAAAAAAABUE/umEdQjOl1zA/s640/IMG_3339.JPG[/img]
Alta, Main Chute, June 2010

Thanks for sharing. You should consider keeping you shoulders square to the fall line and not drag the uphill hand, it will really help in steeper terrain.

As he pointed out earlier, that's Admin in the chute - I was the photographer.

 

[Admin]

Thanks for sharing. You should consider keeping you shoulders square to the fall line and not drag the uphill hand, it will really help in steeper terrain.

Gee, thanks a lot. :roll:

 

[soulskier]

Most towns in the world are not like this, let's not be unrealistically idealistic. Most towns aren't pedestrianized either. I'm sorry the vibe and town (a couple rickety buildings) at Squaw were ruined. :lol:

Listen, my wife loves whistler. You know why? The skiing is good, but she loves the town, the nightlife, and restaurants and the shops. I think it's great that these resorts are giving options for people other than just skiing. It allows me to go on a ski vacation with loved ones, even if they aren't big skiers. I'm sorry but her idea of ski vacation isn't staying at an econolodge outside a village with "some older buildings and a huge parking lot." It's certainly not going to some "funky bars" and avoiding three day old corn in some hippy's dirty beard.

Last night I had dinner with the author of "In Search of Powder, America's Disapearing Ski Bum".

http://books.google.com/books?id=Id9DY- ... &q&f=false

No offense Rob, but being in NYC doesn't exactly give you a finger on the ski community pulse.



IMO, reduced season passes are not necessarily a good thing, because now many more people are passholders, thus decreasing the overall ski experience. (When Squaw dropped their pass prices, they were rumored to have sold 8 times as many passes as the year before). Personally,I'd rather pay $500 more per season and have way less skier traffic on the mountain.


Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? =D> First it's too expensive, now it's too cheap, so there are too many people skiing!!! You come off as quite the elitist in this.

I am not an elitist at all. We are indentifying a niche and will be filling it. I think we will name a run "Hippy Elitist".

It sounds as if your business model is: dirty hippies get a mountain in the MRA model. There is no village at the base, so tourist don't come. Locals don't come because the season lift tix are too expensive and the few owners want to control crowds... MRA goes under. Hippies complain that the price of living in a van is too expensive since the corporate company that took over the mountain started charging for parking....

Assuming that because people are ski bums, that they are dirty hippies is like me assuming Marc C sings in the Tabernacle Choir every week. That is a gross, and inaccurate generalization.

Seriously though, if you want empty mountains it's time for you to get AT bindings and do what Icelantic does.

I have been backcountry skiing since the late 1980's. Please contact Tony for my resume O

 

[Patrick]

Thanks for sharing. You should consider keeping you shoulders square to the fall line and not drag the uphill hand, it will really help in steeper terrain.

Gee, thanks a lot. :roll:

Well Admin, Marc C uses a picture in trying to make his point versus soulskier and MRA's point of view. The fact that it wasn't a picture of himself which wasn't clear from the start, you must have know that you were open to some attack.

Lucky Marc C didn't use a picture of myself cause the attack could have been much worst. Where is the pic from the grumpy man in the chair? :lol:

I like all the negativeness in here, people seeing no problem with the status quo and attacking someone thinking outside the box. How many people believe in the ski area pioneer? How many people laughs at them? I remember when people started talking about the MRG Coop in the rec.skiing days. A few diehards believed in it, many more laughs. Not saying soulskier is a pioneer, but he's trying to do something about it, not just playing Monday morning quarterback. :roll:

 

[Tony Crocker]

I don't recall getting soulskier's resume privately. It's in the Shames thread or perhaps in one of the Canadian media interviews referenced there.

We are identifying a niche and will be filling it.

My contention is that there are quite a few places filling that niche already. Of the places I've skied personally I'd list Mad River Glen, Monarch, Wolf Creek, Sundance, Powder Mountain, Brundage, Bridger Bowl, Red Mt., Castle Mt., Whitewater with the latter 4 being closest to soulskier's terrain preferences. These 4 also fit into JSpin's preference for exciting adjacent terrain requiring earned turns.

Baldy and Waterman fit the profile when they have snow. Mt. Rose fits it too IMHO, though maybe soulskier would exclude it for serving its intermediate terrain with high speed lifts.

How many of these areas has soulskier visited? He needs both ski them and talk to their managements about how they function in an economic and sustainable fashion. Would I like to see more areas like these? Sure. That's why I don't think soulskier is reinventing the wheel here and thus should observe and investigate some successful areas that serve his stated niche.

I like all the negativeness in here, people seeing no problem with the status quo and attacking someone thinking outside the box.

This is why I post comments and pose questions like the ones above in an effort to be constructive. I view rfarren's and EMSC's comments for example in the same light. Since most of the answers have been ideological and not so practical, I think that's why the discussion has turned more negative.

if a ski area creates more energy than it consumes, then the electricity is no longer a liability, but an asset.

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) I'll try one last time here. Energy production facilities have significant capital costs. Those costs have to be compared to the resulting energy no longer purchased from the utility or sold back to it. The utilities are not generous in the rates they pay to small producers who are net negative. The economics are most likely to work, as in the case of my solar panels, in replacing expensive energy consumption. And in most cases it's also necessary for the state, the utility, etc. to be picking up the tab for some of the capital costs. Otherwise you probably have a situation (using soulskier's own numbers from Mt. Abrams) where the investment has a 2% return on its own merits. MRA-type areas by definition have low energy consumption. They are probably the least likely areas to make sense producing energy.

As an aside I asked the Mammoth patroller at ISSW about the wind issue. The best site for consistent wind is probably on the back side of Lincoln Mt. He said Mammoth had an "environmental officer," whose position was eliminated within the past couple of years. He also reminded me that big industrial customers do not pay the high marginal rates for electricity that residential customers do. Therefore the energy replaced by a Mammoth wind tower would not return anywhere near the 33cents/kWh that solar panels do for a high consuming SoCal Edison residential customer. We all know that with Starwood's debt load, they are eagerly looking under rocks for any promising revenue source at Mammoth. I suspect the numbers for wind production don't work yet for Mammoth.

There is a geothermal plant not far from Mammoth. The patroller said they are considering that as a heat source when they build a permanent lodge at Eagle.

 

[soulskier]

Here's the latest from Michel Beaudry, titled "Maxed Out"

http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/pique/ ... tates+1742

"As for my contention that the Smythhews groundbreaking work on Blackcomb Mountain in the 1980s did not turn out exactly as they'd planned, that too comes directly from Mr. Mathews's mouth. "We shrunk the mountains," he told me in a recent interview. "And now we're trying to figure out a way to make them big again..."

 

[rfarren]

No offense Rob, but being in NYC doesn't exactly give you a finger on the ski community pulse.

No, but it give me a more honest appraisal of what a vacationer wants in a ski vacation. I like a variety of places when it comes to skiing. I am simply stating that your vision that there could be huge mountains with barebones infrastructure is untenable and doesn't make economic sense. Look I would love for manhattan rent to be what it was in the 70s but then I would have to deal with a much more dangerous city, with higher unemployment, more homeless etc... I know you want a return to the 70s with skiing but it's unrealistic. If you do bare bones with a large mountain you won't get the skier visits to allow it to be economically viable. Skiers like you are a very small minority of skiers.

]I am not an elitist at all. We are indentifying a niche and will be filling it. I think we will name a run "Hippy Elitist".[/color]

Name it what you want, but I think Tony's response to this pretty much nails it.

Assuming that because people are ski bums, that they are dirty hippies is like me assuming Marc C sings in the Tabernacle Choir every week. That is a gross, and inaccurate generalization.

Fair enough, but it's a pretty good assumption that they're poor. In fact, many ski bums are able to be ski bums because they live in resort towns which offer a plethora of seasonal jobs. Without those seasonal jobs, those ski bums won't be able to afford to ski whether or not it's an MRA ski area.

I've been skiing Mammoth regularly since 1978 and I take issue with much of this. Mammoth had 1.4 million skier days in 1982 and 1986, and barely surpassed that peak in 2005 and 2006. Has the skier experience diminished? Not IMHO. The face of chair 3 is the only place I've seen a negative impact from higher skier density, and that only in late season. When it was a double the liftline was unacceptable on weekends after ~10AM. I think a fixed quad might have been a better move there, but the other lift upgrades have had no downside IMHO. Yeah the powder gets tracked faster now, but a lot of that is equipment. Good luck skiing many runs in the Sierra Cement or windblown on 1980's gear for most of us.

Since your a numbers guy, let's put it in this context. Back in 1982, can you tell me what the uphill capacity was at Mammoth? Today's capacity is around 50,000 skiers/hour. The difference between the two is how many more people can be on the same slopes. Since terrain has not expanded one bit, that's a lot more people on the same slope at the same time

Here's a math question for you:
Q: If the skier visits are the same and the uphill capacity is smaller what do you get?
A: Lines and bottlenecks at lifts.
Here's a people question:
Q: Would a skiers experience be enhanced if he had to stand on line for 3 hours out of a 6 hour day, even if it meant fewer ski traffic while going down?
A: No, a skier would prefer more on hill traffic but more runs per day.

Now, maybe you would prefer longer lines and fewer skier on hill, but that would make you very much in the minority.

BTW investing in green energy at a ski mountain requires tremendous initial capital. It wouldn't see immediate returns on that investment. They would be paying off on that investment for a long time. Even if they weren't paying the electric company, they would still be paying for "electricity" in loan payments. Those green technologies whether they are solar and or wind require lots of maintenance. They requires bodies, which requires cost. Everything has a price. If green energy was truly cost effective we would see it a lot more than we have seen up to this point.