or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why Ski Resorts should be charging MORE for skiing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why Ski Resorts should be charging MORE for skiing - Page 4

post #91 of 109

Hi,

 

It's very expansive for me. And not only the lift. Else, the hotels, the food, etc are $$$. Just the rentals are affordable, in my point of view.

 

I don't know... It's look like a kind of pre- talk to prepare for a common sense  for high price "accepted as normal" and the final

business goal should be low variance on fares... oligopoly.

 

 

  Cheers

post #92 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I retired ten years ago and went from roughly 40 days a year to 70. Also doubled or tripled my vert. But it is quite obvious to me that there's not many 60+ year old women out there. In fact, I'm looking at taking ski lessons strictly to meet some more ski companions. Don't expect to get anything out of them other than that.

This isn't meant to be snarky, sibhusky, but I hope you get more from the lessons than simply new companions.  If you don't, ask for a new instructor.  

On a mountain like yours, a good instructor really should be able to introduce you to "new" ways to ski familiar terrain.  If they can't, I would bet that another instructor could.

I've done this Ladies Day thing twice. Swore I'd never do it again. Maybe going in with low expectations will produce a win. Unless you have a custom group, which involves getting the women to agree on a day and an instructor, you get what you get. I know a group that does this, but have skied with those people in the past and looking for a different group. And, in fact, not so sure about the instructor they have, either. If you asked me now who to ask for, for an older woman, I could not tell you. I'm more than willing to take this off line if you want to name someone. But these are group lessons and you're plonked in the group that wants the same terrain. To get another instructor, you'd have to go up or down an ability level or make a stink, it's not like there are hundreds of groups to choose from.
post #93 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


I've done this Ladies Day thing twice. Swore I'd never do it again. Maybe going in with low expectations will produce a win. Unless you have a custom group, which involves getting the women to agree on a day and an instructor, you get what you get. I know a group that does this, but have skied with those people in the past and looking for a different group. And, in fact, not so sure about the instructor they have, either. If you asked me now who to ask for, for an older woman, I could not tell you. I'm more than willing to take this off line if you want to name someone. But these are group lessons and you're plonked in the group that wants the same terrain. To get another instructor, you'd have to go up or down an ability level or make a stink, it's not like there are hundreds of groups to choose from.

 An elite athlete has a group that had to turn away young hotshot(ish) teenagers because the program was filled with sedate older ladies. After 2 years, I gave up trying to get my daughter enrolled. Meantime a different program blossomed that is for young girls only, and it rocks, and it's free and it's embraced by competing big hills that are growing grassroots and the next wave of die hard moral owners..

post #94 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatbob View Post
 

 

 

 
I know vacation days are the blocker but the key difference in the European and US ski market is that Europe is still very fixed to the 7 day ski holiday with flights/drives on the Saturday to the extent that the "normal" US long weekend is often difficult to come by accommodation wise.
 
 

Arriving in Geneva on a Saturday is a trip. Arrival area shoulder to shoulder with people trying to maneuver ski bags, dozens of shuttle drivers with signs held at chest level where no one can see them, everyone trying to go in a different direction. Add jet lag, no sleep on the airplane, overheated from all the extra clothes I was wearing because they wouldn't fit in my allotted baggage . . . . But it's worth it.

post #95 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by veteran View Post

 An elite athlete has a group that had to turn away young hotshot(ish) teenagers because the program was filled with sedate older ladies. After 2 years, I gave up trying to get my daughter enrolled. Meantime a different program blossomed that is for young girls only, and it rocks, and it's free and it's embraced by competing big hills that are growing grassroots and the next wave of die hard moral owners..

Vet, why do you keep referring to moral ownership ?

Are the board of directors responsible to the local condo owners in some special way

Are they elected, appointed by an HOA or ...

Or is this an Austrailian thing

Real curious
post #96 of 109
Plus I'm not a young girl and his program is not at my resort, so not seeing the relevance. Definitely it's hard to match up skier demographics to groups when the participation level is small.
post #97 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by near nyquist View Post


Vet, why do you keep referring to moral ownership ?

Are the board of directors responsible to the local condo owners in some special way

Are they elected, appointed by an HOA or ...

Or is this an Austrailian thing

Real curious

 

 

Boreal is owned by a ski club leased to managers, so club members are moral owners. Depending on the lease (and if it has KPIs) the landlord/club has influence and might speak up if they, as consumers, see some stupid policy brought in.

 

Some US hills are converting to tax exempt co-ops, and a town (in Maine iirc) leases the resort for $1 a year to those who run the resort. Iirc it now has 2 e-volt rechargers, govt grants to go green, and the town is throwing a few fundraiders to effectively save their hill and their local economy with $15 day tix. The townsfolk are the moral owners.

 

Some hills and businesses 'own Tahoe', so to speak, and they and, Universal and tourism boards got together to promote snow in California to an international tv audience that thinks Cali is Disneyland and desert. The moral benefciares are every hotel, and every employee, who benefits in a crap economy from international tourism.

 

There are groups like the June Mtn committee trying to save their hill ...which is reopening this season. And they liased with other 'moral owners' who have helped reopen hills.

 

Some groups are more effective than others. One that comes to mind let opportunity slip and lost a car company sponsor and thousands of beds a week as they gabfested for ages, hired grads as "CEOs" and all they have to show is a new website.

 

Moral owners at the hills I ski get front page stories on investigations into management conflicts of interest or corruption.  Some are working on their own projects, eg girls programs, and they get support from multiple  lift companies that normally don't work together.  Another group pay airfares for our State nordic team to ski/stay at Granniblaken. Or working together they get a Govt grant for a Northstar-esque carpark gondola and grants  to reopen a grand old building. Or pick and the phone and ask a resort to tweak its US season passes, or get a 'pay 8 for 14' deal in Aspen. Or ring travel wholsealers to get extra discounts on international travel. Or they get audits that sack entire managements and might have law enforcement after naughty execs. And we talk and cordinate. Management don't ignore the moral owners.

post #98 of 109
So moral owners are usually stakeholders that are associated with a public / pseudo public entity

Or a for profit corp operating a public entity where the stakeholders are the local residents of the public entity
post #99 of 109

Or it is an Australian thing..........

post #100 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post

Arriving in Geneva on a Saturday is a trip. Arrival area shoulder to shoulder with people trying to maneuver ski bags, dozens of shuttle drivers with signs held at chest level where no one can see them, everyone trying to go in a different direction. Add jet lag, no sleep on the airplane, overheated from all the extra clothes I was wearing because they wouldn't fit in my allotted baggage . . . . But it's worth it.

 



That's why you fly in mid-week, and off-peak. Did that last season. Only thing is, our skis arrived but nothing else! But we were good little bears, and carried on the boots, and ski pants/gloves, etc. So we could at least ski the next day! Lucky for us the Swiss are very good at delivering luggage...But the jet lag does suck. You just have to ski really hard and tucker yourself out.
post #101 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeski919 View Post

 

If you're becoming bored with a mountain after 6 days, maybe skiing isn't really your bag.

 

...OR you haven't discovered the "wow" factor of technical versatility.

post #102 of 109
Quote:

Exactly.

Some skiers might enjoy the challenge of skiing the same terrain multiple times in different ways, and they'll feel that different lines down the same terrain offer a different experience (especially if they're skiing blacks, double-blacks, and glades). But a lot of people just cruise down the middle of blues and greens, and they like to explore. To them, the right side, left side, and middle of a blue aren't different experiences; they're the same thing three times. They want to ski this green, then that blue, then that other blue, then that green over there, and so on. It's not about what's under their feet; it's about where they are.

Yes, certain mountains will draw a crowd that is willing to hit the same terrain over and over. And actually, terrain parks are an extreme version of that, with people willing to do the same couple hundred feet of vertical over and over and over and over. But that's not the average tourist. At least, that's not what I hear when I'm riding the lifts in the US.

There's a reason resorts spend money on expansion.

 

In my life before becoming a ski instructor I skied with my ski club members every weekend.  They would start on the west side of wherever we were and work their way to the east side of the mountain.  They never wanted to ski the same run twice, and it was their goal to hit every run (unless it had trees or bumps).  It was a deliberate pattern that no one (but me) was interested in breaking.  Is this common?  I went along for a while but hated it and finally left for an alternate skiing lifestyle.

post #103 of 109
When I skied at Camelback, 16 seasons on the same 125 acres, I did stuff like that. But you were not allowed to go off trail, so it became more about little games and avoiding lift lines than enjoying each turn. It's way easier to enjoy each turn when you're not dodging bodies.
post #104 of 109
Everyday conditions are different. Take a couple of pairs of skis. Ski on one ski. Ski switch. Take a lesson. I've skied the same mt for 30 years. I could ski the same 2000 ft all day. It's what I'm doing not as much where I am @.
post #105 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by x10003q View Post
 

Or it is an Australian thing..........

 

 

It's just an organisational thing.

 

Eg Look at threads on the 'bad economy' and "Woe is me, day tix are $100" vs a US hill and town that now has $15 day tix + govt $ + festivals and other ideas they hope to save their local economy. Some hills get off of the Sofa and do something.

 

 

Or look at SV where the Political Reform Act pinged a developer's 'facilitator' - and maybe things won't stop there. Once threads get tugged, all sorts of things unravel. :)

 

In this case, a town was incorporated after a developer went thru expensive hoops. Then the new town refused to approve the development. Something like 476 cities came in like the cavalry to save Santa Barbara. Now that's moral owners using muscle.

 

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

 

 

 

At the other end of the spectrum, good organisers of moral owners end up filling more buses than a ski hill and end up with people with policies affecting a few thousand acres called Los Angeles and USA. :cool

*

 

 

 

I saw it on Hogans Heroes where the "Owner-Manager' only thought be ran the "resort". In other words there's "ohh there's nothing I can do sofa sitters' and then there's moral owners who can cal in the cavalry and push buttons


Edited by veteran - 9/20/13 at 11:49pm
post #106 of 109
^^ A little confused by your Santa Barbara reference. The city of Goleta - about 20 minutes from SB - is in the same county, but a big part of their motivation to incorporate was because of them being dominated by Santa Barbara city interests in general despite a large population base, not just one case of development. They had also tried (and failed) to incorporate several times before that. I was living in SB at the time when it actually happened in 2002, btw.
post #107 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

^^ A little confused by your Santa Barbara reference. The city of Goleta - about 20 minutes from SB - is in the same county, but a big part of their motivation to incorporate was because of them being dominated by Santa Barbara city interests in general despite a large population base, not just one case of development. They had also tried (and failed) to incorporate several times before that. I was living in SB at the time when it actually happened in 2002, btw.

That's right: people aka the moral owners, of a little corner of SB took control of their patch (a little like Olympic Valley might do) and a very high Court  said the new small local government could block the developer.

post #108 of 109

The notion of charging more (in order to increase revenues) is missing more important issues.  On the OP's same site is this piece worth reading:

 

“Skiing…is a logistical nightmare.”

 

http://www.slopefillers.com/growing-skiing-donnie-clapp/

 

Beyond the above, those comparing skiing costs by lift tickets alone are misguided.  Lodging and transportation costs are much more significant today than back in the 80s even when cost of living is figured in.   Much of that has to do with petroleum costs.  It is simply much more expensive for younger people today that used to be the new customers decades ago to consider skiing as a regular passion.  Just the roundtrip gas costs for this person today are 3 plus times 80s lift ticket costs.  Another reality is there are far more other leisure time choices for those with outdoor orientations.   And many of those are cheaper and easier to become involved in.

 

As a reality check when ski resorts consider what potential demographic they might increase visitations from, the stubborn notion of marketing to the higher end destination skier will probably not be productive.   The higher end middle class market no thanks to Wall Street, politicians, financial elite, has simply significantly shrunk due to economic realities in this global era.  What there was is aging and predictably becoming less interested in outdoor pursuits.

 

Another issue with skiing has always been that the percentage within the young adult career stable demographic within vehicle driving distance of resorts, that ever even try the sport out a single time has always been pathetically low.    In this era there are large numbers in that demographic that don't even know others who have ever tried the sport.   Thus there are and always has been an available pool of potential skiing enthusiasts that remains untapped.   One obvious thing the ski industry could do would be to subsidize bus transportation to nearby urban areas together with subsidizing lift ticket and equipment rental costs to participants that qualify as never evers.   And if they focused such to individual colleges and high schools, that would encourage groups that know each other to come that has a significantly higher chance of being enjoyable versus a bus full of mostly strangers and small one and twosy groups.

post #109 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_SSS View Post

 

“Skiing…is a logistical nightmare.”

 

Lodging and transportation costs are much more

 

Much of that has to do with petroleum costs.

 

Another reality is there are far more other leisure time choices ..., many of those are cheaper and easier to become involved in.

 

As a reality check when ski resorts consider what potential demographic they might increase visitations from, the stubborn notion of marketing to the higher end destination skier will probably not be productive. 

 

Another issue with skiing has always been that the percentage within the young adult career stable demographic within vehicle driving distance of resorts, that ever even try the sport out a single time has always been pathetically low.  

 

In this era there are large numbers in that demographic that don't even know others who have ever tried the sport.   Thus there are and always has been an available pool of potential skiing enthusiasts that remains untapped.  

 

One obvious thing the ski industry could do would be to subsidize bus transportation to nearby urban areas together with subsidizing lift ticket and equipment rental costs to participants that qualify as never evers.  

 

And if they focused such to individual colleges and high schools, that would encourage groups that know each other to come that has a significantly higher chance of being enjoyable versus a bus full of mostly strangers and small one and twosy groups.

 

Good points.

 

I've posted before about moral owners' events that fill every bed for weeks - and midweeks- on end, and growing the sport.

 

Logistics: try $660 for 5 nights/4 days of young people from across the State with a bus, hire of everything, bunk-bed lodging, lifts, all food, all booze and 2 'rave parties'. It works.

 

One moral owner group, which includes resort owners,  throw inter-club parties with participants from all the States' main hills. The under 10s are playing hide n seek, the teens are out chasing girls, the 20 somethings are dancing til 3am, and the old fahts are dining and wining. The snow is crap ...but they come for the apres.

 

This ball was the culmination of a few seasonal events/lodging/transport/hire/food/booze/redbull. The ball had unlimited booze and Redbull's latest releases: ie corporates sponsor dollars work.

*

 

These kids (about 5000) were subsidised by a car manufacturer for a week. (The girl went on to be one of the youngest in the Winter Olympics).

*

 

And these kids end up in  stable high end jobs, buy apartments, rent apartments every weekend, and add zing to the nightlife at fun hills like Squaw. (Destination skiers don't).

*

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Why Ski Resorts should be charging MORE for skiing