16 replies to this topic

[teachme]

A few things over the past months have made me question the future of the ski industry and ask to what extent it is a sunset industry. One was a discussion with a cousin who owns hotel rooms at a BC ski resort. It seems in 20 years he has lost a lot of money, and things at the resort are just stable. This is a major well known BC resort that is making upgrades, but basically things are just OK. How can other mountains like Kicking Horse or Revelstoke afford to develop and survive?

Sure a stronger Canadian dollar did not help with US tourists, but that still does not explain everything. Japan is also not the source of rich ski tourists it was 20 years ago, and there are much fewer package skiers from Australia and Europe as they have their own economic issues. Also, most of the new rich from China are honestly not interested in Skiing.

Another thing making me question the future is looking at who is skiing from our own communities. We live in a very multicultural society, yet the largest demographic I see skiing (at least in Western Canada) are quite honestly middle to upper middle class white. That is a relatively shrinking demographic. How many new immigrants develop a passion for skiing, even if they can afford it? I learnt to ski by being around people who loved it. If none of a person's friends like skiing, they will not learn to like it. The 80's and snowboarding introduced or at least encouraged a whole new generation or demographic to get into skiing, but there does not seem to be anything now bringing many people to the sport who are unfamiliar with the sport.

Cost may be one major issue. It seems increased lift ticket prices are dissuading new people from the sport, and limiting those already in the sport. I bought a Youth seasons pass at Blackcomb in 1987 for $225. Using an inflation calculator that is $470 in today's dollars. Yet, the pass costs $719 this year (all early bird prices). OK, the mountain developed, but a seasons at almost any other good BC resort is in the same range, if not higher ($929 at Silver Star). How can the next generation of skiers enter the sport if it costs so much?

Did a bit of research and:

The number of ski areas operating in the U.S. has dropped to 470 from 546 resorts in 1991, according to the National Ski Areas Association.

Jensen separated the 470 ski areas in the United States into 5 tiers:

1. Uber (10)
2. Alpha (35)
3. Status Quo (125)
4. Survivor (150)
5. Sunset (150)

Looking at things, it all seems a bit sad. :( Is it heading towards a sunset industry?

TME

[2milehi]

I'd say that a lot of the small resorts are on their way out. People's expectations have changed (faster lifts, ski information "streaming" to the skiers smart phone) and the small resorts can't keep up.

[JohnRW]

Small resorts are also not able to deal with the changing weather conditions as well. For example, my resort doesn't have snowmaking, or probably the capability to add it at almost any cost due to our geography and land ownership issues. This wasn't a huge issue 20-30 years ago, or even 15. But the past few years we've seen a lot less snowfall, and warmer temperatures. We can't make up for it by blowing snow on the cold days, so our seasons have become shorter, we have many more days where the skiing is marginal at best, and we're less attractive than the places that can guarantee a decent snowpack. It's hard to get people to purchase season passes or make us a regular option if we can't promise consistent conditions, stable open-closing dates, etc. For now, we're making up some of the lost winter revenue with increased summer revenue (parking fees, weddings) but as 2milehi says, we can't keep up. Eventually we'll reach a point where we can't invest in upgrades to our lifts and other infrastructure (to say nothing of new lifts) and will have to close.

[Yooper Skier]

I'm curious what areas fall into each category...

[Sacdelic_Skier]

^^^^

[SkiDaBird]

As long as there is snow, there will always be skiers, but it does seem to be a sunset industry. I think you hit the nail on the head with the cost, and it isn't just season passes, everything is more expensive.

[lift_electrical]

As SkiDaBird says "If there is snow, there will be skiers" no matter the season pass cost. Maybe not as many but they will be there. The travelling skiers are the ones I wonder about. I can't imagine what a family of four pays to go ski for a week. Mom and Pop ski areas will always be my favorite, no big ski area BS attitude, fun ski area people and they are drinking in the bar with you after the ski day is done.

I don't by a local ski area pass anymore. They are just too busy for me and for one of them, way too much attitude. I ski at work to get most of my fix. My wife and I go to some really fun Montana Mom and Pop areas for a few weekends each year. I just hope they can continue to work through their challenges so we can continue to get out of town in the winter! Super Bowl weekend at Discovery in a few weeks!

Jeff

[hipennine]

Seen from the UK, the cost of snowsports in N.america has become just too expensive compared to the alps. For example, this weekend I am going to the Gastein Valley in Austria for a week. The cost of flying from my local airport, resort transfer, half-board in hotel (incl a beverage with evening meal) and a lift pass for about 135 miles of ski trails and 60 lifts, and ski bus between the hills every 15 minutes, is USD979 incl taxes and tips.By comparison, a 7 day lift ticket for Breckenridge starting this Saturday would cost me USD1043.

Also to note that ski travel insurance for 1 year costs me about USD200 per year excluding N.America, but USD700 if N.america included!

This post has been edited by hipennine: 13 January 2016 - 12:51 AM

[Peter Pitcher]

teachme, on 10 January 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

A few things over the past months have made me question the future of the ski industry and ask to what extent it is a sunset industry. One was a discussion with a cousin who owns hotel rooms at a BC ski resort. It seems in 20 years he has lost a lot of money, and things at the resort are just stable. This is a major well known BC resort that is making upgrades, but basically things are just OK. How can other mountains like Kicking Horse or Revelstoke afford to develop and survive?

Sure a stronger Canadian dollar did not help with US tourists, but that still does not explain everything. Japan is also not the source of rich ski tourists it was 20 years ago, and there are much fewer package skiers from Australia and Europe as they have their own economic issues. Also, most of the new rich from China are honestly not interested in Skiing.

Another thing making me question the future is looking at who is skiing from our own communities. We live in a very multicultural society, yet the largest demographic I see skiing (at least in Western Canada) are quite honestly middle to upper middle class white. That is a relatively shrinking demographic. How many new immigrants develop a passion for skiing, even if they can afford it? I learnt to ski by being around people who loved it. If none of a person's friends like skiing, they will not learn to like it. The 80's and snowboarding introduced or at least encouraged a whole new generation or demographic to get into skiing, but there does not seem to be anything now bringing many people to the sport who are unfamiliar with the sport.

Cost may be one major issue. It seems increased lift ticket prices are dissuading new people from the sport, and limiting those already in the sport. I bought a Youth seasons pass at Blackcomb in 1987 for $225. Using an inflation calculator that is $470 in today's dollars. Yet, the pass costs $719 this year (all early bird prices). OK, the mountain developed, but a seasons at almost any other good BC resort is in the same range, if not higher ($929 at Silver Star). How can the next generation of skiers enter the sport if it costs so much?

Did a bit of research and:

The number of ski areas operating in the U.S. has dropped to 470 from 546 resorts in 1991, according to the National Ski Areas Association.

Jensen separated the 470 ski areas in the United States into 5 tiers:

1. Uber (10)
2. Alpha (35)
3. Status Quo (125)
4. Survivor (150)
5. Sunset (150)



Looking at things, it all seems a bit sad. :( Is it heading towards a sunset industry?

TME

Who is Jensen and how can he possibly know the financial condition of 471 ski areas and by the way, which category does my ski area Discovery fall into just in case I should be making plans for a career change

[Emax]

Peter Pitcher, on 14 January 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

Who is Jensen and how can he possibly know the financial condition of 471 ski areas and by the way, which category does my ski area Discovery fall into just in case I should be making plans for a career change[/indent]

Career change? For you? It's unthinkable.

[Lift Dinosaur]

Peter Pitcher, on 14 January 2016 - 06:22 PM, said:

Who is Jensen and how can he possibly know the financial condition of 471 ski areas and by the way, which category does my ski area Discovery fall into just in case I should be making plans for a career change[/indent]

Bill Jensen has been around. Former President of Kassbohrer N.A.; former President of Vail Mountain Division; former President of Intrawest; currently President and part owner of Telluride.

[cjb]

In my general area and experience season passes are cheaper and come with greater benefits than 20-25 years ago.
But that doesn't mean I am arguing that the ski industry isn't dying.

[Peter Pitcher]

Lift Dinosaur, on 15 January 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

Bill Jensen has been around. Former President of Kassbohrer N.A.; former President of Vail Mountain Division; former President of Intrawest; currently President and part owner of Telluride.

I know Bill, I've never heard of his tier system, is it published?

[teachme]

The source:

http://ski.curbed.co...s-are-dying.php

[Mike12164]

The real issue is the increased cost of operating a ski area, insurance aside and labor aside, energy costs are still through the roof compared to the old days, even with oil prices lower than they have been. The skiing public these days demands snowmaking, more grooming and faster lifts, all of these things cost more to run than you might think. This prices smaller independent resorts out of the market. Fewer companies running fewer resorts drives overall prices up and a lot of families these days just don't bother teaching their kids to ski. Cheaper alternatives have resulted in a lack of interest.

Despite all of this prices aren't that far out of line and if some overall interest can be generated things will turn around quite quickly, some sort of "you're not cool if you don't know how to ski" sort of marketing might be in order.

[dhowe@nwlink.com]

One thing missing from the NSSA stats on lost ski areas is that virtually all of the lost ski areas they count were smaller ski areas (few lifts, limited vert). By my reckoning, almost all ski areas that operated from the 1980s on with four or more chairlifts and 1,000 of vertical are still around today. You can count the closures on one hand. And if you measure by lift capacity there is way more capacity today than there was in the 1970s or 80s. That's why lift lines are mostly a thing of the past compared to the 45 min waits I remember from those earlier days at some busy areas. The product is much more expensive (i.e., I remember paying $11 for a day ticket at Mammoth) but it is also vastly superior in quality (e.g., grooming, lifts, snow making). Skier visits have been flat for many years but that probably is a demographic problem. At least the numbers are not going down. I think their will be more survivors than Jensen credits. The privately owned ski areas that I frequent in the Pacific Northwest all seem to be hanging in there if not thriving. They are slowly replacing lifts, buying snow guns for early season insurance, adapting to changing tastes. Lastly, skiing is remarkably recession proof. Skiers pay up whether they afford it or not. For many of us we can't live without it.

[SkiDaBird]

dhowe@nwlink.com, on 27 March 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

One thing missing from the NSSA stats on lost ski areas is that virtually all of the lost ski areas they count were smaller ski areas (few lifts, limited vert). By my reckoning, almost all ski areas that operated from the 1980s on with four or more chairlifts and 1,000 of vertical are still around today. You can count the closures on one hand. And if you measure by lift capacity there is way more capacity today than there was in the 1970s or 80s. That's why lift lines are mostly a thing of the past compared to the 45 min waits I remember from those earlier days at some busy areas. The product is much more expensive (i.e., I remember paying $11 for a day ticket at Mammoth) but it is also vastly superior in quality (e.g., grooming, lifts, snow making). Skier visits have been flat for many years but that probably is a demographic problem. At least the numbers are not going down. I think their will be more survivors than Jensen credits. The privately owned ski areas that I frequent in the Pacific Northwest all seem to be hanging in there if not thriving. They are slowly replacing lifts, buying snow guns for early season insurance, adapting to changing tastes. Lastly, skiing is remarkably recession proof. Skiers pay up whether they afford it or not. For many of us we can't live without it.

That's a good point.
White, addicting, and totally legal.