EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › What is the latest on Mammoth Airport?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the latest on Mammoth Airport?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
The last I heard - Sierra Club among others - had requested an Environmental study which "maybe" completed this year?

Does anybody know the latest news on this? What is your best guess at when the airport might be completed?

I believe Westin Hotels is starting to build and Pan Pacific is coming too. I can't believe that these major Hotel Chains are coming in without some inside scoop that the airport will happen sooner rather than later.
post #2 of 26
Quote:
What is your best guess at when the airport might be completed?
It's complete right now. The expansion, on the other hand, will never happen.

The FAA finally got on the ball about a year ago, and learned that the airport's business plan documents contradict the airport's environmental documents. Then in October the FAA sent a forceful letter to the town (town owns airport) re the airport's concessionaire agreements, which extend far, far into the future. The agreements, legal documents mind you, are completely contrary to FAA regulations. The letter gave the town 60 days to respond. The town has yet to respond!!!

It was also recently determined that there are hangars encroaching on the runway. No kidding. The truth is stranger than fiction. When a plane is coming in for a landing now (small GA planes), they have to run down to these hangars and make sure everybody keeps their hangar doors closed.

The FAA is also unhappy about the adjacent land ownership. To fix all the problems would require land that will never be available for purchase. It used to be that they only thought that issue affected the lack (and impossibility) of a non-crosswind runway. Yikes!

Summary: the news couldn't possibly be worse for the airport, or better for anybody who has any sense.
post #3 of 26
How long a drive is it from Reno to Mammoth?
post #4 of 26
three hours in good weather.

fwiw: Mammoth Shuttle (760) 934-6588 (Reno & out of area only) and Sierra Express (760) 924-8294 offer service to and from Reno and around the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
post #5 of 26
Flying from the East coast Reno is a great choice for a gateway to Mammoth because Reno usually doesn't get much snow. If the pass to Mammoth is shut because of snow, you can find cheap places to stay in Reno and have many ski options in the area. The drive from Reno to Mammoth is scenic but the crawl through Carson City traffic lights would get old for me after awhile.

I have done the Las Vegas to Mammoth drive and it is really interesting as the choices go through bristlecomb forests and through Death Valley.
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talisman
The drive from Reno to Mammoth is scenic but the crawl through Carson City traffic lights would get old for me after awhile.

You can stay in Motel 6 or the motel next to Motel 6 in Carson city, its on the south edge of Carson City next to the entrance to Route 50(S. Lake Tahoe) on 395, or 10 miles to Route 88 (Kirkwood) and avoid all the Carson city traffic enrote to Mammoth. Just stayed in Motel 6 last weekend, not too bad, $40 incl tax on Friday & Sat., cheaper Sun-Thur.
post #7 of 26
Ah but you forget, to get to Mammoth, from Reno, one must drive US 395.
Good ole California,(use that term loosely) can be anal about forcing you to chain up, if your in a 2 wheel drive,if more than 3 flakes in a row fall. You could be on bare pavement for 30 + miles, before needing the chains.
4 wheel drive recommened(know how to drive it). Long dull boring drive. Couple of small towns that looks like they know how to party.
Stay in the Reno Tahoe area, plenty of choices to ski, eat,drink, shop, sleep.
From what i hace seen of Mammatoh ( from the road) it doesn't look like theres much to do afterwards. I could be wrong.

As for the airport thing,, Do you think the new owner of Mammaoth will 'pad' the palms of the tree huggers a (sore subject to me) and FAA? So they can get more people flying in?
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Do you think the new owner of Mammaoth will 'pad' the palms of the tree huggers a (sore subject to me) and FAA?
Actually, the expansion woulda been a Corporate Welfare-style taxpayer subsidy of a (Canadian, for now at least) company.
Quote:
tree huggers
Do tell. This might be good. Or not. I'll fill in more details later.
post #9 of 26
you would think(or in my case hope) that with all the money NV has from gambling, they'd put up a small airport and a few casinos across the stateline from mammoth, especially with the yosemiti visitors to pull from too . wouldnt that be cool, southwest funfares dec. thru may !
post #10 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by skicougar
you would think(or in my case hope) that with all the money NV has from gambling, they'd put up a small airport and a few casinos across the stateline from mammoth, especially with the yosemiti visitors to pull from too . wouldnt that be cool, southwest funfares dec. thru may !
There is that small matter of the Silver Peak Mountain range, no roads and no population in that region of Nevada
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahoetr
From what i hace seen of Mammatoh ( from the road) it doesn't look like theres much to do afterwards. I could be wrong.
You can't see much of what Mammoth has to offer from 395. There is a lot to do in the town of Mammoth Lakes besides the skiing and riding. Mammoth Lakes has lots more going on than Truckee, but less going on than South Lake Tahoe.
post #12 of 26

Blow-back of airports

Airports and ski areas don't work well together. And the FAA doesn't work well with anyone other than than the aviation community. Airports enable development. Development moves the area upmarket. Moving upmarket (Aspen-ization) means increasing costs. Increasing costs mean more expensive skiing for all : Mammoth has an unfriendly business model with regard to expanding airport operations to serve the area, at least in the longer term.

By the way the reason CalTrans/CHP dictate chain control so quickly is due to the ineptness of the typical driver in snow country. For entertainment watch the live CHP incident reporting, e.g. http://cad.chp.ca.gov/body.asp?centerin=tkcc, during a storm. You'd have a greater insight into the carnage that goes on out there. Last week I-80 was shut down for more than an hour due the creative driving of a BMW without chains : Bet he's in trouble
post #13 of 26
Everyone I know in the area is against the idea of the airport. Of course, they think the area is too crowded already.

Seems to me the big problem with the Reno airport is:

RNO > Mammoth - 3 Hours
RNO > Squaw - ~1 Hour
RNO > Alpine - ~1 Hour
RNO > Heavenly - < 1 Hour
RNO > Rose - 30 Minutes

And that's just the start, so much to ski that's so much closer. You really gotta want to go to Mammoth (not that it isn't worth it too) to skip all the other closer options.
post #14 of 26

Let's remember Tahoe skiers visit Mammoth

Mammoth is certainly worth a visit. Let's remember that Mammoth actually markets its season pass to Tahoe residents. And we come. We come to both get away from the Tahoe madness, and to enjoy the wide open skiing that is Mammoth. I personally have only made one trip down this season (so far), but still the residents down there treat me like a local. And we empathize with each other about the trashing of our towns due to over development and inefficient use of the developments that come in as well as airport issues, cost issues, ...

The problem is convincing the visitors is that while they are the main reason our towns exist they are also creating a problem. But the problems are macro, not personal. We can't, and probably shouldn't, try and convince each visiting individual to behave more responsibly for the good of the town. Hell it isn't their town, they're just here to have fun. And so goes the Aspen-ization of ski towns. And so the ski industry gets strangled. To think that the simple expansion of an airport can have this big a negative impact. Airports are good. Right ?
post #15 of 26
I have flown in and out of Mammoth many times in private aircraft, but never commercially. It can be a tricky approach when the weather is iffy, and the winds are kicking.

But there have also been several times when I couldn't get into the airport, so would divert to Bishop, about 40 miles to the south. The road between Bishop and Mammoth is easy driving and no passes to deal with. The airport there used to handle a lot of of commercial traffic(not sure about more recently), and certainly has the room to expand if necessary. Isn't this an option?

After all, the passengers arriving on those biz jets and commercial airlines landing in EGE (Eagle Cty Airport) still have to drive or van 30 miles to Vail, and often almost 70 miles to Aspen. And they don't seem to mind to much, with the option being a 2 hr drive from DIA to Vail, or about 4 hrs to Aspen.

Depending on whether the Mammoth Airport ever accepted FAA funds for airport maintenance or development, then there are indeed very rigid requirements about what can be done with the facilities there. And encroachment of hangars into ILS broadcast paths can result in potential accidents, not to mention limiting the size of aircraft using the airport.

Airports do indeed benefit the communities which they serve. Often the benefits are not plainly visible, but the financial impact on the community is pretty impressive. If you are not sure, go talk to a smaller town which had its airport closed, and find out what was the resulting impact.

I'm not suggesting that the Mammoth Airport has to grow to handle B767 service as Eagle has, but lets face it- you can't stay in the 60's forever! And growth of the airport does not imply higher costs at the ski area, unless Intrawest is supplying the $$$. I have yet to see Intrawest invest a single cent into any airport near any of their holdings. But the increased traffic will provide for more jobs, more visitors, and ultimately more income to the local economy.
post #16 of 26

And the negatives ?

Sadly, while you highlight the benefits, you fail to identify any of the negatives of aviation on a mountain community. Here's a few ...
  • Rememer that only about one-quarter of one percent of the US poplulation are licensed pilots. Something around 650,000 folks.
  • Conducting aviation operations in mountainous terrain is unsafe. Similarly conducting operations at altitude is unsafe, even when density altitude is ignored. Mammoth is in the top 10 percentile of unsafe airports in California. Ironically Salton Sea is the most unsafe and it's BELOW SEA LEVEL. Go figure (it's a statistical anomoly)
  • Pumping leaded gas into the environment is not very socially concious - do the readers know that prop planes use leaded gas ? 100LL - the LL stands for Low Lead. Except it's not low lead really. It's 4g a gallon which actually is a high lead content.
  • Airplanes make a lot of noise. And claiming that jets are getting quieter is irresponsible given that the aviation community negotiated an exclusion for jets under 75,000 pounds. So now small airports are blessed with G2/G3s that are LOUDER than current model 747-400s.
  • General Aviation is an inefficient people mover compared to automobiles and trains, except for the time savings for the individuals who choose to fly in.
  • General Aviation is a security risk. Their basic approach is "trust us". Yet the majority of the 9-11 terrorists had some level of GA training. If you want to subset a group of folks who may be terrorists you'd get a better hit rate targetting pilots rather than muslims, or Arabs
  • It's estimate that a sixth of Californians live in an airport influence area which reflects the risk and noise of aviation operations. When selling a home in an airport influence area one has to issue a negative property disclose to the prospective buyer - this negatively impacts property values by billions of dollars (even though some of the property value may reflect access to aviation related facilities).
  • While airports are open space a large portion of the open space is runways, taxiways, apron. The rest is managed to minimize small mammals and insects to minimize bird activity and so is mowed. Airports tend to be almost as poor a environmental open-space as golf courses !
So GA is an environmental, safety, noise, security disaster. And the GA community are doing little or nothing about it. But they want better and more airports and the FAA is happy to assist them. 'Cause they're so great for the communities they serve. Intrawest wants one close - it was part of the deal that Mammoth could handle scheduled 737s before they started their Village project.

Ironically I think scheduled airlines are better for the community than GA because ...
  • It's available to all
  • The operators advertise who they are on their equipment and so can be held responsible for 'unfortunate events'
  • The professional pilots know that noise abatement and safety are truely important
  • Commercial airlines must run stage 3 jets - no G2s or Lear 25s :
  • Timing of scheduled operations can be influenced by the local community (no flights at anti-social hours please)
  • Commercial planes carry many more passengers per operation
For anyone who reads this rant - thank you.
post #17 of 26
From what I have read over the last couple of years the expansion of the Mammoth Airport is a dead issue. Everyone knows it. One item that seems to be overlooked is Bishop. Its a 30 minute drive to Mammoth from there. I have heard through casual conversations that closed door discussions are taking place between the powers to be at Mammoth and the key officials at Bishop. You may even hear some type of official announcement by the end of the year.

Times are changing for Mammoth. Some see it as good, others see it as bad. I am not going to debate it either way. Intrawest has a vested interest and a lot of money in development already, and access is a key component to future development. Dave McCoy has his shares of the mtn. up for sale and its question as to whether Intrawest absorbes them, Rusty or both.

I also heard the other day that there is a land swap with the USFS and Mammoth over land where the Whiskey Creek is. I was told that Mammoth's intention was to trade land they owned by June, for the land on and surronding the Whiskey. That if the swap went through the Whiskey would be moved and a parking structure would be built in its place, a large one to accomidate more skiers for the mountain. Could be rumor could be factual I don't know, but all very intersting.
post #18 of 26

High Density Development

While developers like Intrawest and East-West Partners get a bad name what they are doing, generally, is maximizing their profits on limited expensive land in recreation areas. They do this by introducing high-density developments like The Village at Mammoth. This creates a hub for off-mountain activities which may be bad for existing businesses. But it concentrates visitors which then can make public transportation viable because there are fewer locations to serve to reach a suitable volume of users. Where things go wrong, I think, is when they target a market of the upper echelons of the income stratesphere by providing privately owned multi-million-dollar accomodations. These are the folks who fly in on their private planes on their private schedule which may not be very attractive to the people on the ground. Some of these people on the ground are folks who are in the mountains looking for the "mountain experience" which typically includes peace and quiet (in a Village environment ?). Impacting the peace and quiet impacts the mountain experience that we're trying to market to the very people who are impacting it. Sounds like a Catch-22 to me.
post #19 of 26
Vail snopro and watersugeon hit the nail on the head. As one who has been skiing Mammoth since 1978, the solution of using Bishop for the Airport seems so obvious. It's a desert climate and I've seen chain control in Bishop exactly once in 27 years and maybe 100 trips up there. Everybody knows about the wind at Mammoth, and commercial flights if they happen are going to get diverted 20+% of the time. I'm surprised Dave McCoy didn't point Intrawest in the direction of Bishop a long time ago.
post #20 of 26
Dave McCoy LIVES in Bishop.
post #21 of 26

And in the other corner....

Truckee Local has mentioned a few of the issues which are brought up on a regular basis by those who either do not understand GA (General Aviation), or are anti-GA for some reason or another.
Not as a pure rebuttal to his points, but I would like the opportunity to offer the other side of his story.

Quote from TL-
"Sadly, while you highlight the benefits, you fail to identify any of the negatives of aviation on a mountain community. Here's a few ..."

TL- "Remem(b)er that only about one-quarter of one percent of the US poplulation are licensed pilots. Something around 650,000 folks."

VSP- This is correct. It is a group of individuals who take their passion for aviation very seriously, just as most serious skiers do. And it is far more expensive than skiing. Less then 350,000 fly small GA aircraft on a regular basis.

TL- "Conducting aviation operations in mountainous terrain is unsafe. Similarly conducting operations at altitude is unsafe, even when density altitude is ignored. Mammoth is in the top 10 percentile of unsafe airports in California. Ironically Salton Sea is the most unsafe and it's BELOW SEA LEVEL. Go figure (it's a statistical anomoly)"

VSP- This is untrue. Operation in mountainous terrain or at higher density altitudes is only unsafe if the pilot is untrained, inexperienced, and makes poor decisions. By the way- Mammoth Airport is not IN the mountains. It is on the plains to the East of the Sierra's, with an unobstructed approach from both the North and the South. Colorado Springs, CO (KCOS) (where I teach flying, specializing in Mtn Flying) is ranked in the top 5 worst x-wind airports in the US, and is positioned very similarly to the Rockies, as Mammoth is to the Sierra's. Despite that ranking, the incident rate (including STUDENT pilots) is extremely low. The incident rate in any LA Basin or Bay Area airport is considerably higher! And with much greater consequences.

TL- "Pumping leaded gas into the environment is not very socially concious - do the readers know that prop planes use leaded gas ? 100LL - the LL stands for Low Lead. Except it's not low lead really. It's 4g a gallon which actually is a high lead content."

VSP- This is true. Due to the need for the higher compression engines (as cars engines prior to 1980), MOST (not all) propeller driven aircraft do burn leaded fuel (Jets burn Jet A, which is similar to diesel fuel). But there are very few aircraft flying at any given time, compared to the thousand + cars which drive from LA to Mammoth on any given Friday, and then home again on Sunday. They may be burning unleaded fuel, but how much fossil fuel emissions are being put into the atmosphere on a comparative basis?


TL- "Airplanes make a lot of noise. And claiming that jets are getting quieter is irresponsible given that the aviation community negotiated an exclusion for jets under 75,000 pounds. So now small airports are blessed with G2/G3s that are LOUDER than current model 747-400s."

VSP- Yes, aircraft do make noise. You point purely at the "jet" noise. Prop planes are certainly quieter then jets, but both are noisiest when at full power, usually just for take off. This also happens to be when they are nearest the ground. Funny that... But soon after take off, as power settings are adjusted, noise is reduced significantly. Landings are done at significantly reduced power settings, therefore are considerably quieter operations. Another fact- all aircraft being manufactured today meet the much stricter European noise standards. The G2/G3's you mention are usually older models which have not been retrofitted with quieter engines. Yes, there are those around. But especially with RVSM taking effect, these older aircraft will likely be shipped out of the US to countries with less strict noise restrictions within the next 10 years.


TL- "General Aviation is an inefficient people mover compared to automobiles and trains, except for the time savings for the individuals who choose to fly in."

VSP- This exact same statement can be made about commercial airlines! Nobody has EVER claimed that aircraft are efficient! They are far from it, at any level of operation. If they were, the airlines would not be in the situations they are in these days. The fuel efficiency, the number of passengers, etc, are all very poor, compared to other types of ground based transportation! It all comes down to the time savings.


TL- "General Aviation is a security risk. Their basic approach is "trust us". Yet the majority of the 9-11 terrorists had some level of GA training. If you want to subset a group of folks who may be terrorists you'd get a better hit rate targetting pilots rather than muslims, or Arabs."

VSP- I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh when I read this statement! What "security risk" does GA hold?
First of all, most GA airports have a very high percentage of extremely active, very aware pilots. Even more so since the implementation of the "Airport Watch" program (co-sponsored by the FAA, AOPA, EAA, and supported by the HSA). They will challenge anybody wandering around a ramp who seems out of place. And those individuals are quite noticeable.
Secondly- except for those trained by the military, EVERY pilot flying for an Airline was trained through GA! And because flight training in the US is so much cheaper then anywhere else in the world, a HUGE number of foreigners come here to get their training. This INCLUDES foreign militaries! Even this is now under scrutiny, with new regulations in place which require flight instrs to ascertain the nationality of, and to document, all foreign students prior to commencing flight training.
Thirdly- Let's review the lesson learned by the 15 year old who was psychologically disturbed by the 9/11 attacks. He took off without his instr, and proceeded to crash his Cessna 172 (an average GA training aircraft) into a high rise bank. He succeeded in killing himself, ruining an aircraft, and breaking a window. Yes, a case could be made that somebody else might have been killed, had the office been occupied. But average GA aircraft are quite small, carry very little fuel (usually less then 50 gallons), and travel at low speeds (average barely 100MPH). This results in a very small chance of any extensive damage being caused by those aircraft, as compared to the aircraft used on 9/11.


TL- "It's estimate(d) that a sixth of Californians live in an airport influence area which reflects the risk and noise of aviation operations. When selling a home in an airport influence area one has to issue a negative property disclos(ure) to the prospective buyer - this negatively impacts property values by billions of dollars (even though some of the property value may reflect access to aviation related facilities)."

VSP- This may be true, but most airports were built long ago, far from towns and cities which have continually grown larger, until they actually begin to surround their respective airports. They grew closer to have access to those facilities, the same ones they now claim to be a hazard. And developers knew they were building near a potential hazard. Why else did they get the land so cheaply to develop? Then they try to have the airport closed down. In excess of 70% of those areas you claim to be impacted were developed after the airport had been built. (AOPA statistics) Whose fault is that then?
More recently, the FAA has been very active in preventing developments which would encroach into approach and departure corridors, and in preventing the closing of airports which have received Federal Funding for Airport development and maintenance.

TL- "While airports are open space a large portion of the open space is runways, taxiways, apron. The rest is managed to minimize small mammals and insects to minimize bird activity and so is mowed. Airports tend to be almost as poor a environmental open-space as golf courses !"

VSP- Do you realize the mall you go shopping at probably has more acres of asphalt/concrete then the average GA airport? I don't hear you complaining about that? Airports are NOT Public Parks! And the reduction of wildlife in the vicinity of an airport is a must. Would you put a rice field right at the end of Reno/Cannon Airprot, enticing ducks and other waterfowl to congregate in the area? This would result in a high percentage of bird strikes, endangering any aircraft, and all the passengers on board. Airports do have special safety needs. And as long as the public demands the use of aircraft, commercial or GA, then those safety needs must be met.


TL- "So GA is an environmental, safety, noise, security disaster. And the GA community are doing little or nothing about it. But they want better and more airports and the FAA is happy to assist them. 'Cause they're so great for the communities they serve."

VSP- TL, the facts you have stated are mostly correct, and I appreciate your opinion. But they do not give the entire story. They are selective and misleading. (Sounds kind of like the recent Presidential campaigns...) GA is extremely active in the development of noise abatement policies, environmental concerns, safety and security. If you were an active pilot, you would know and understand these things. But like most industries, when you are on the outside, looking in, you do not recognize how things really work. This is the same for the ski industry- most skiers don't have a clue how it really is run. As long as the flights/lifts run on time, they don't really care.
Certainly we want better airports. They are safer when things aren't perfect. Such as deicing facilities at airports where snow is common. Are you aware that Reno/Cannon is a Cat III airport? That means, when the weather is REALLY bad, you can still land there. Instead of burning additional fuel while flying circles in the sky for hours, or diverting to SAC or SFO.
post #22 of 26

Thanks for your considered response

I thank you for taking the time to read, digest, and respond to my post. It strikes me that you may be one of those in the GA community that recognize that GA has problems and rather than attacking those who complain about the issues you try and work on the cause of the problems. This, I think you'll agree, is a rare attribute.

ps. I recognize that I'm a little OTT on the security issue but needed to highlight it somehow. I'll find a better way to 'play' it in the future.
post #23 of 26
TruckeeLocal, I have to raise a few points from your discussion;
-autos have to be the most inefficient means of transportation, IMO
-unleaded or leaded fuel aside look at the air in the bay are or so cal
-are airports worse that hiways on the environment, when was the last time
looked around so cal? Those hiways are so lovely to look at, and great for the
animals too!
-any road is open 24/7, got to love those Harley's as well
-any idiot can recieve a drivers license, proven daily on any road
-may drivers are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, as proven by 3
incidents recently in Santa Rosa, drunken mother leaves 2 childern in
car (one child dies strapped to car seat), drunken driver kills bicyclist at 11am
while pulled off road on to sholder, driver crashes his vehilce over creek into
telephone pole, this driver had no license and has 8 (yes eight!!) DUI
convections.
-atleast a pilot as to have some training to get a license and I do not think there
may piloits with 8 DUI's and no license flying over my office today
-Pilot's were not the problem on 9/11, the extreme groups that sought airlines as
their weapon on that day are the problem. If the planes were not available they would have sought other methods (do you happen to remember Ok City/bomb in a van?) Have you been partaking in to much medicinal marijuana lately?
-Discloser's on real estate, especially in CA
- if you neighbor fart's every morning when he/she gets up you better disclose it
or you will be sued, you need to disclose aircraft noise but not surface street
noise?

I think we all agree that we go to the mountains for specific reasons. Growth brings some nice conviences but also (if not done properly) can diminsh what draws us there.
post #24 of 26
Team, you're losing it. GA is alive and well at the Mammoth Airport. Marty was seeking discussion about the planes a Westin Hotel's guests might use -- commercial aviation jets like the 757.
post #25 of 26
I am not completely familiar with all the issues surrounding the proposed expansion of the Mammoth airport, but it did sound in one post as though the issue was moot, due to all of the extenuating circumstances.

Therefore, I ask my previous question- why not Bishop? It has the room to grow (or once did) and the city/ airport authority can place what ever restrictions it pleases on the operation of aircraft. Those can be as simple as operating curfews, which are very common. And no doubt, it will contribute to the economy of the city.

My comments to TruckeeLocal were merely in response to his comments. They seemed to be directed toward GA, more than commercial carriers.
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro
I am not completely familiar with all the issues surrounding the proposed expansion of the Mammoth airport, but it did sound in one post as though the issue was moot, due to all of the extenuating circumstances.

Therefore, I ask my previous question- why not Bishop? It has the room to grow (or once did) and the city/ airport authority can place what ever restrictions it pleases on the operation of aircraft. Those can be as simple as operating curfews, which are very common. And no doubt, it will contribute to the economy of the city.

My comments to TruckeeLocal were merely in response to his comments. They seemed to be directed toward GA, more than commercial carriers.
As I mentioned earlier Bishop may be in discussions behind closed doors. The department of defence has to be involved in the dicussions because Bishop is actually a secondary emergency runway for China Lake experimental plane operations.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › What is the latest on Mammoth Airport?