First of all, respect to you for choosing to serve the people of your country by joining the army.
This said, quoting from your pre-previous post
|Meanwhile, an oft-tapped resource is the well-to-do skier, who will spend more at the resort in real dollars than two or more of those families on discount passes. Him paying premium prices subsidizes their discount. His footprint is smaller than theirs (less resources used), but his profit potential for the resort is greater
If you compare things in that view, you are favouring short term income (maybe higher, I agree) but you are forfeiting the longterm view.
A family in composed of Parents and Children, and if they learn to ski, then they will assure continuity to the sport and a future cash flow.
OTOH, the "well-todo-skier" as you put (and it looks to me that you mean him as a single person, without family), once he'll be old or die, will not bring *any* money to the resort.
The family younger components, will still be there.
Maybe with their children along.
resort must simply choose beteewn "all the money they can grab now, and to the hell the future" of "less money , but an assured cash flow over the years"
This said, a simple question comes to my mind, who owns the lifts? The resorts or the U.S Forest Service?
I know that the difference is thin, and prioritizing the accees to one (the lifts), effectively prioritize the access to the other (the slopes)...
BTW, I think that beelines for schools have been abolished at many, if not everywhere, resorts here in Italy, a looong time ago. And certainly this wold be the only case where I would accept it. To have another skier, no matter how rich, get "fast lane right" just because he can afford it, will immediately set me to go to another resort, never to return to the first one.
Still, I have no problem with the idea that if someone wants to access first traks in the mornig must pay a little extra.
I just hope that said idea will never reach here.