Comments on: The Future of Ski Areas http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/ Backcountry Skiing & Beyond by Andrew McLean Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:30:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Wayne http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3755 Wayne Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:51:42 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3755 I stopped resort skiing (at least on Mt Hood) last year due to the over inflated cost. This article puts a new perspective on my opinion of the subject, that nothing is being done to improve the quality of the experience to compensate for the over inflated cost of a lift ticket. For those who cant afford a season pass, the $70/day ticket price at Meadows has passed the mark of no return for even a day trip. My last encounter at that price still found me standing in lift lines exceeding 20 minutes to ski overpopulated runs. When I consider the return on my $70 investment, I see my ski experience is still the same as when I started skiing 18 years ago, actually worse.... Nothing has changed except the replacement of old chairs with high speed quads that yet ironically has done nothing to decrease the time spent standing in line, and everything to increase the amount of skiiers on the runs. Apparently, the resort measures a ski day by chairlift capacity instead of ski area capacity. Back in the slow chairlift days, we used to say "if only this chair would go twice as fast..." well now they do, except we still get the same amount of runs and with more people in the way! What's wrong with this picture? Why am I being charged more for less than I got 18 years ago? Where is the ROI? I stopped resort skiing (at least on Mt Hood) last year due to the over inflated cost. This article puts a new perspective on my opinion of the subject, that nothing is being done to improve the quality of the experience to compensate for the over inflated cost of a lift ticket.

For those who cant afford a season pass, the $70/day ticket price at Meadows has passed the mark of no return for even a day trip. My last encounter at that price still found me standing in lift lines exceeding 20 minutes to ski overpopulated runs. When I consider the return on my $70 investment, I see my ski experience is still the same as when I started skiing 18 years ago, actually worse…. Nothing has changed except the replacement of old chairs with high speed quads that yet ironically has done nothing to decrease the time spent standing in line, and everything to increase the amount of skiiers on the runs. Apparently, the resort measures a ski day by chairlift capacity instead of ski area capacity. Back in the slow chairlift days, we used to say “if only this chair would go twice as fast…” well now they do, except we still get the same amount of runs and with more people in the way! What’s wrong with this picture? Why am I being charged more for less than I got 18 years ago? Where is the ROI?

]]> By: hypersailor http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3721 hypersailor Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:54:36 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3721 4% of Utah locals ski, pathethic numbers when compared with the 57 Million visitors nationwide. No wonder Utards don't support smart Canyon use, they haven 't a clue! Then again few Utah resorts bend over backwards to encourage newbies. A few deals/steals if you really keep an eye out, but compared to Colo/Idaho we're way behind and losing skiers fast since all skiers (to me) sample new spots yearly. Ease of resort use, friendly employees, lots of dollar options to me make a great resort. Most skiers don't know great snow anyway during their 11 average ski days a year. An Interconnect is ludicrous, can't even keep the PCMR lifts turning as it is, getting stuck miles out is a Patrollers nightmare. There are donzens of tiny quonset hut ski areas in the nation, happy folks abound. Talk about a labor of love...great well rounded discussion, its not an easy solution, but the recent economy is shaking out the rich and poor skier alike... 4% of Utah locals ski, pathethic numbers when compared with the 57 Million visitors nationwide. No wonder Utards don’t support smart Canyon use, they haven ‘t a clue! Then again few Utah resorts bend over backwards to encourage newbies. A few deals/steals if you really keep an eye out, but compared to Colo/Idaho we’re way behind and losing skiers fast since all skiers (to me) sample new spots yearly. Ease of resort use, friendly employees, lots of dollar options to me make a great resort. Most skiers don’t know great snow anyway during their 11 average ski days a year. An Interconnect is ludicrous, can’t even keep the PCMR lifts turning as it is, getting stuck miles out is a Patrollers nightmare.

There are donzens of tiny quonset hut ski areas in the nation, happy folks abound. Talk about a labor of love…great well rounded discussion, its not an easy solution, but the recent economy is shaking out the rich and poor skier alike…

]]> By: Darrell http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3675 Darrell Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:23:32 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3675 Check out "Let My People Go Surfing" by Yvon Chouinard. It describes how he went from climbing bum to president of Patagonia, bucking conventional "wisdom" and creating a company that is profitable while being as socially responsible as possible. Check out “Let My People Go Surfing” by Yvon Chouinard. It describes how he went from climbing bum to president of Patagonia, bucking conventional “wisdom” and creating a company that is profitable while being as socially responsible as possible.

]]> By: Darrell http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3674 Darrell Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:17:52 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3674 Snowmaking is definitely resource intensive. Resorts like it because it extends their season on both ends. A layer of dense, icy, manmade snow as a base keeps the first new snows of the season from melting as quickly, and is the last layer to melt off in the spring. Even though most skiers don't travel to a resort before Christmas or much after the spring break season in February, a longer season looks good on paper. Same goes for terrain parks, at least at some resorts. If you look at the demographics of small east coast or mid-west resorts, I believe the numbers are quite different than you see at a big destination western resort. With out pow and lots of vert, a small ski area can draw lots of crowds with good terrain parks. Ironically, some of these smaller resorts in central new england or the mid west are actually less luxury oriented and more local oriented. In the end it comes down to what management sees as the best way to turn a profit. They know that a lot of skiers won't actually ski all, or even most of the terrain available but they also know that skiers like the IDEA of all the added amenities and terrain. They perceive a longer season, more terrain, faster lifts, luxury this and that as an added value. The big resorts are actually pretty savvy about who their market is and how to cater to it. The problem, as i see it, is when a resort tries to market outside of its traditional base or core customers. Trying to become something you are not is tricky for a resort due to the high cost of building infrastructure. Especially if you want to do it quickly. ASC is a case in point. The growing pains at that corporation as it grew finally caught up to it. They went from the biggest resort corporation in the country, owning lots of resorts in several markets to being completely dissolved in just a few years. The fact remains that most skiers that ski at resorts put in two weeks a year and are lower intermediate in ability. The total growth is flat. Gossip has it that Alta has even seen decreasing skier visits in recent years. Why else would they create an interconnect with the Bird but to cash in on the bigger is better concept and try to attract more skiers? In the industry as it stands, the only way to grow profits is either to increase the amount any individual skier spends or to steal skiers from a competitor. This begs the question, ultimately, of "Why?" Why do we need to increase profits or skier visits? Snowmaking is definitely resource intensive. Resorts like it because it extends their season on both ends. A layer of dense, icy, manmade snow as a base keeps the first new snows of the season from melting as quickly, and is the last layer to melt off in the spring. Even though most skiers don’t travel to a resort before Christmas or much after the spring break season in February, a longer season looks good on paper. Same goes for terrain parks, at least at some resorts. If you look at the demographics of small east coast or mid-west resorts, I believe the numbers are quite different than you see at a big destination western resort. With out pow and lots of vert, a small ski area can draw lots of crowds with good terrain parks.
Ironically, some of these smaller resorts in central new england or the mid west are actually less luxury oriented and more local oriented.
In the end it comes down to what management sees as the best way to turn a profit. They know that a lot of skiers won’t actually ski all, or even most of the terrain available but they also know that skiers like the IDEA of all the added amenities and terrain. They perceive a longer season, more terrain, faster lifts, luxury this and that as an added value. The big resorts are actually pretty savvy about who their market is and how to cater to it. The problem, as i see it, is when a resort tries to market outside of its traditional base or core customers. Trying to become something you are not is tricky for a resort due to the high cost of building infrastructure. Especially if you want to do it quickly. ASC is a case in point. The growing pains at that corporation as it grew finally caught up to it. They went from the biggest resort corporation in the country, owning lots of resorts in several markets to being completely dissolved in just a few years. The fact remains that most skiers that ski at resorts put in two weeks a year and are lower intermediate in ability. The total growth is flat. Gossip has it that Alta has even seen decreasing skier visits in recent years. Why else would they create an interconnect with the Bird but to cash in on the bigger is better concept and try to attract more skiers? In the industry as it stands, the only way to grow profits is either to increase the amount any individual skier spends or to steal skiers from a competitor.
This begs the question, ultimately, of “Why?” Why do we need to increase profits or skier visits?

]]> By: Morgan http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3666 Morgan Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:35:27 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3666 I have been frustrated by the trend to to add luxury to skiing and many other things. I have '95 Toyota pickup that has no power locks, Mirrors, Windows etc it cost around $17,000 new. Now the same truck comes standard with all these power gadgets that I don't want and costs $24,000, luckily my truck is still going strong. The same thing has happened with skiing. New lifts, lodges and snow making have jacked up the price. I think one of the biggest wastes off money at ski areas is snow making. Here in Crested Butte we have plenty of natural snow to open by mid Nov most years but they use massive amounts of man power, electricity and water to get the area open for Thanksgiving. Terrain parks, while fun, are outrageously expensive and a very small portion of skiers use them. I have just started Union of Crested Butte Season Pass Holders to try to influence the ski area to cater a little bit more to its most loyal customers. Not quite sure how or if it will work but thought I would give it a try. I am encouraged by the side country trend Because it gets people out having little adventures on the ski area and that is what skiing is all about. I have been frustrated by the trend to to add luxury to skiing and many other things. I have ’95 Toyota pickup that has no power locks, Mirrors, Windows etc it cost around $17,000 new. Now the same truck comes standard with all these power gadgets that I don’t want and costs $24,000, luckily my truck is still going strong. The same thing has happened with skiing. New lifts, lodges and snow making have jacked up the price. I think one of the biggest wastes off money at ski areas is snow making. Here in Crested Butte we have plenty of natural snow to open by mid Nov most years but they use massive amounts of man power, electricity and water to get the area open for Thanksgiving. Terrain parks, while fun, are outrageously expensive and a very small portion of skiers use them.
I have just started Union of Crested Butte Season Pass Holders to try to influence the ski area to cater a little bit more to its most loyal customers. Not quite sure how or if it will work but thought I would give it a try.
I am encouraged by the side country trend Because it gets people out having little adventures on the ski area and that is what skiing is all about.

]]> By: Darrell http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3651 Darrell Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:45:54 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3651 How about a "critical mass" event at one of the big spendy resorts? Just like bicyclists do to raise awareness of bike issues, we could get a big group of skiers to rendezvous at the base of a resort and skin up a main run at the resort to raise awareness of these issues. Can you imagine 200+ bc skiers skiing up under Collins lift some morning, en mass? Media exposure of this type of event could bring a lot of issues to light that the general skiing public might not be aware of, such as the flagstaff proposal. Easing into this by planning the first few events to begin before the resort opens to the public, but timed so that most of the skiers arrive at the top of the lift just as it opens might be good, but running one right smack in the middle of the day would be a lot more news worthy. They can't arrest EVERYONE, right? How about a “critical mass” event at one of the big spendy resorts? Just like bicyclists do to raise awareness of bike issues, we could get a big group of skiers to rendezvous at the base of a resort and skin up a main run at the resort to raise awareness of these issues. Can you imagine 200+ bc skiers skiing up under Collins lift some morning, en mass? Media exposure of this type of event could bring a lot of issues to light that the general skiing public might not be aware of, such as the flagstaff proposal.
Easing into this by planning the first few events to begin before the resort opens to the public, but timed so that most of the skiers arrive at the top of the lift just as it opens might be good, but running one right smack in the middle of the day would be a lot more news worthy. They can’t arrest EVERYONE, right?

]]> By: SnoGrl http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3641 SnoGrl Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:17:47 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3641 I think there are still many ski areas out there that offer an affordable, family experience. In addition to Bogus Basin, areas that come to mind are Brundage Mountain in Idaho, with a season pass available for under $300 (if you buy early), Willamette Pass in Oregon with a $45 lift ticket and a $500 season pass, Red Lodge in Montana $47 lift ticket. Never heard of these places? Why doesn't anyone know about these places? They don't have the money for 'branding' like Vail or Aspen or Sun Valley or Whistler, but they offer a solid ski experience and you could argue that their lack of crowds creates an even better experience. People seem to get sucked in by the marketing machine and it's hard for the little guys to compete in that area. I think there are still many ski areas out there that offer an affordable, family experience. In addition to Bogus Basin, areas that come to mind are Brundage Mountain in Idaho, with a season pass available for under $300 (if you buy early), Willamette Pass in Oregon with a $45 lift ticket and a $500 season pass, Red Lodge in Montana $47 lift ticket. Never heard of these places? Why doesn’t anyone know about these places? They don’t have the money for ‘branding’ like Vail or Aspen or Sun Valley or Whistler, but they offer a solid ski experience and you could argue that their lack of crowds creates an even better experience. People seem to get sucked in by the marketing machine and it’s hard for the little guys to compete in that area.

]]> By: Stan http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3639 Stan Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:01:47 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3639 I am so glad I love to skin up. As Ptor said higher up, Whistler became (to me as well) the example of ski resort project gone bad. The way the whole resort operates there (friends work there and other friends ski there) just made me to not ski at any resort at all. I just became disgusted with the...greed, inhumanity, unwillingness... Now the Olympics are coming here. Am I excited? On one hand yes, because as a sports fan I like to see athletes compete. On the other hand, I can care less because it will be a rich man run show so he can get even richer and cares less about what locals want. I am so glad I love to skin up.

As Ptor said higher up, Whistler became (to me as well) the example of ski resort project gone bad.

The way the whole resort operates there (friends work there and other friends ski there) just made me to not ski at any resort at all. I just became disgusted with the…greed, inhumanity, unwillingness…

Now the Olympics are coming here. Am I excited? On one hand yes, because as a sports fan I like to see athletes compete. On the other hand, I can care less because it will be a rich man run show so he can get even richer and cares less about what locals want.

]]> By: Darrell http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3635 Darrell Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:35:24 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3635 Really, we can trace all our problems back to Sondre Norhiem. He was the original free-heel hippy fun-hog. He wanted to have skis that turned more easily and invented sidecut. Some also credit him with being the first to add a heel strap to bindings for increased control. It's been a slow downward spiral ever since. there is clearly a direct link between the first skis with sidecut to the Bogner one-piece and slopeside capppuccino. Damn hippy fun-hogs! They ruined a basic form of utilitarian transportation! Really, we can trace all our problems back to Sondre Norhiem. He was the original free-heel hippy fun-hog. He wanted to have skis that turned more easily and invented sidecut. Some also credit him with being the first to add a heel strap to bindings for increased control.
It’s been a slow downward spiral ever since. there is clearly a direct link between the first skis with sidecut to the Bogner one-piece and slopeside capppuccino.
Damn hippy fun-hogs! They ruined a basic form of utilitarian transportation!

]]> By: Darrell http://straightchuter.com/2009/10/the-future-of-ski-areas/comment-page-1/#comment-3634 Darrell Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:27:19 +0000 http://straightchuter.com/?p=3571#comment-3634 Mad River Glen, VT. is run as a cooperative. It was bought by interested parties, mostly season pass holders, when the original owners decided they couldn't afford to operate it any more. They recently replaced the historic single person fixed grip chair lift with a brand new single person fixed grip chair lift. An example of a long running successful business where success is measured in quality of experience vs. economic quantity. Don't know if it is run as a non-profit. One contributing factor to the decline of smaller family-type ski areas is the Forest Service insurance requirement. At some point a few decades ago, The USFS decided that liability insurance needed to be much higher for any commercial operation run on Forest Service lands. Pretty much put hundreds of tiny one rope tow ski hills out of business over night. This is a result of the way litigation takes place in our country, and paranoia about covering losses in the face of frivolous lawsuits. Not all legal action is frivolous, of course, but just the preliminary costs of preparing to defend oneself against a case can bankrupt a small business before the case even gets to trial. Vermont law currently allows the formation of insurance companies for single use policies. (captive insurance) I.E. a company can form it's own insurance company for a very specific kind of insurance, creating lower premiums. Not sure if this is wide spread within the ski industry or not but it seems like it may be a model that could work for a co-op non-profit organization. Mad River Glen, VT. is run as a cooperative. It was bought by interested parties, mostly season pass holders, when the original owners decided they couldn’t afford to operate it any more. They recently replaced the historic single person fixed grip chair lift with a brand new single person fixed grip chair lift. An example of a long running successful business where success is measured in quality of experience vs. economic quantity.
Don’t know if it is run as a non-profit.
One contributing factor to the decline of smaller family-type ski areas is the Forest Service insurance requirement. At some point a few decades ago, The USFS decided that liability insurance needed to be much higher for any commercial operation run on Forest Service lands. Pretty much put hundreds of tiny one rope tow ski hills out of business over night. This is a result of the way litigation takes place in our country, and paranoia about covering losses in the face of frivolous lawsuits. Not all legal action is frivolous, of course, but just the preliminary costs of preparing to defend oneself against a case can bankrupt a small business before the case even gets to trial.
Vermont law currently allows the formation of insurance companies for single use policies. (captive insurance) I.E. a company can form it’s own insurance company for a very specific kind of insurance, creating lower premiums. Not sure if this is wide spread within the ski industry or not but it seems like it may be a model that could work for a co-op non-profit organization.

]]>