Getting Back to your Inner Ski Bum

[soulskier]

Here's one for the collective

http://www.mrablog.com/getting-back-to- ... reg-seitz/

[Tony Crocker]

Once again, wrong on the skier visit numbers. The 80's and 90's were the flat decades. The trend is gradually up during the past decade, as noted by Kottke.

We've been over this ground before. While I believe demographics are growing the skier numbers now, the growth is coming more from the "back to basics" types than from those who put top priority on the high end amenities. As evidenced by financial distress at some of the high end developments while skier numbers continue to increase in a poor economy.

[jamesdeluxe]

the growth is coming more from the "back to basics" types

So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?

[soulskier]

the growth is coming more from the "back to basics" types

So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?

What a novel approach

[Tony Crocker]

So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?

Demographic trends are moving in MRA's direction. I would cite Bogus Basin, Bridger Bowl and MRG as successful examples. But it hasn't been an easy road for these places and MRA is potentially taking on challenges that make its prospects more difficult.
1) The above areas have substantial skier population bases within daytrip or weekend drive distance. Shames did not and there are serious questions about Manitoba's.
2) The energy production facilities need to be evaluated in stand alone economic terms. Generally these projects pencil out only with some kind of government tax subsidy. It will be enough of a challenge to operate the ski area on a break even basis.

[soulskier]

So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?

Demographic trends are moving in MRA's direction. I would cite Bogus Basin, Bridger Bowl and MRG as successful examples. But it hasn't been an easy road for these places and MRA is potentially taking on challenges that make its prospects more difficult.
1) The above areas have substantial skier population bases within daytrip or weekend drive distance. Shames did not and there are serious questions about Manitoba's.
2) The energy production facilities need to be evaluated in stand alone economic terms. Generally these projects pencil out only with some kind of government tax subsidy. It will be enough of a challenge to operate the ski area on a break even basis.

Shames taught us many things, most importantly that there is a demand for co-op style/non corporate/skier-centric ski areas that is not being meet.

Your spot on, clean energy infrastructure development requires governmental, state and local assistance, as well as grants and tax incentives to work. Thankfully they are abundant and with the right team in place, accessible.

[rfarren]

2) The energy production facilities need to be evaluated in stand alone economic terms. Generally these projects pencil out only with some kind of government tax subsidy. It will be enough of a challenge to operate the ski area on a break even basis.

Your spot on, clean energy infrastructure development requires governmental, state and local assistance, as well as grants and tax incentives to work. Thankfully they are abundant and with the right team in place, accessible.

You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage.

[Marc_C]

You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage.

...and the additional drive past Alyeska (sp?).

[soulskier]

You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage.

There are 325,000 folks within a 2.5 hour drive of Manitoba.

For air travel, we will look to the airline industry to make steps towards sustainability.

Here's a great start. http://www.grist.org/business-technolog ... goes-green

[rfarren]

You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage.

There are 325,000 folks within a 2.5 hour drive of Manitoba.

For air travel, we will look to the airline industry to make steps towards sustainability.

Here's a great start. http://www.grist.org/business-technolog ... goes-green

Yeah um... AA did that because they are being killed by their aging fleet which is one of the most inefficient in the world. Btw the 320 neo which is the brunt of the order use 10% less fuel than md95s which are the oldest in their fleet. So yeah don't get your hopes up, flying is still and will be incredibly energy intensive.

Sustainable Air Travel is an oxymoron.

[Patrick]

Sustainable Air Travel is an oxymoron.

Yet a few of us use a few times a year. Not very eco, but you can choose to offset with carbon credit (you can on Air Canada).

When I travel, I rarely rent a car if I don't need one...Tony knows about what I think about car rental in SA.

[Admin]

Not very eco, but you can choose to offset with carbon credit (you can on Air Canada).

Which is a bunch of hocus-pocus designed only to make those who are selling the credits like Al Gore, who owns a piece of the Chicago exchange, rich. It doesn't do jack in the real world.

And American Airlines is looking to upgrade their fleet because they're looking to stop losing so much money on fuel, not because of some fairy tale green vision.


Sent from my Android phone using Tapatalk

[rfarren]

And American Airlines is looking to upgrade their fleet because they're looking to stop losing so much money on fuel, not because of some fairy tale green vision.

You said it better than I. AA is going to have a hard time not losing money even after they replace all their aging md95s and 757s, their union is one of the strongest in the industry, and they are getting crushed by them.

Furthermore, Carbon Credits are a complete joke, as they do nothing.... except assuage guilt. Personally, I would rather spend the carbon offset money on renting a GM Denali.

[Tony Crocker]

There are 325,000 folks within a 2.5 hour drive of Manitoba.

I have said all along that Manitoba will succeed or fail based upon whether it can attract a critical mass of these locals. Whether we're flying old 1970's era jets or some pie-in-the-sky solar powered plane of the future, it will always be expensive to travel to Alaska. So no surprise to me the less price sensitive heliski market is the one that is doing well there. An Alaska ski area using the minimalist MRA model is not going to attract many tourists from afar IMHO. The Japanese purchased Alyeska at the peak of their prosperity and failed to attract enough Japanese tourists to make it a successful investment.

[Geoff]

So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?

Demographic trends are moving in MRA's direction. I would cite Bogus Basin, Bridger Bowl and MRG as successful examples. But it hasn't been an easy road for these places and MRA is potentially taking on challenges that make its prospects more difficult.
1) The above areas have substantial skier population bases within daytrip or weekend drive distance. Shames did not and there are serious questions about Manitoba's.
2) The energy production facilities need to be evaluated in stand alone economic terms. Generally these projects pencil out only with some kind of government tax subsidy. It will be enough of a challenge to operate the ski area on a break even basis.

I think it's total BS that you cite MRG as a "successful example" when you are measuring success as skier visits. Mad River chokes to death on 1500 skiers and accounts for an insignificant percentage of Vermont's total skier visits. Mad River is only viable because it is a co-op with zero cost of capital.

The vast majority of skiers and snowboards go to large ski areas with all the amenities. It's a total crock to suggest otherwise.