So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?Tony Crocker":1ud4r3x7 said:the growth is coming more from the "back to basics" types
jamesdeluxe":17aojejl said:So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?Tony Crocker":17aojejl said:the growth is coming more from the "back to basics" types
:-"
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.jamesdeluxe":1cpqmg3v said:So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?
Tony Crocker":215vakia said: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.jamesdeluxe":215vakia said:So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?
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":1dkx3es2 said:Tony Crocker":1dkx3es2 said: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.
...and the additional drive past Alyeska (sp?).rfarren":3lzf9ov6 said:You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage. :stir:
rfarren":91h22eqx said:You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage. :stir:
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.soulskier":1e9npnpb said:rfarren":1e9npnpb said:You should also charge more for lift tickets to cover carbon credits for the tons of airplane fuel required for the flight to anchorage. :stir:
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
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).rfarren":3rx3pmjr said:Sustainable Air Travel is an oxymoron.
Patrick":29aolkl9 said:Not very eco, but you can choose to offset with carbon credit (you can on Air Canada).
Admin":38zulm1n said: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.
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.soulskier":10x7bv4f said:There are 325,000 folks within a 2.5 hour drive of Manitoba.
Tony Crocker":2zz503ej said: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.jamesdeluxe":2zz503ej said:So you're inferring that the general MRA template may be a timely idea?
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.
Isn't a successful ski area one that stays open?Geoff":3fgkr7rn said:I think it's total BS that you cite MRG as a "successful example" when you are measuring success as skier visits.
jamesdeluxe":3j9b66nl said:Isn't a successful ski area one that stays open?Geoff":3j9b66nl said:I think it's total BS that you cite MRG as a "successful example" when you are measuring success as skier visits.
Geoff":38xzjhp4 said:jamesdeluxe":38xzjhp4 said:Isn't a successful ski area one that stays open?Geoff":38xzjhp4 said:I think it's total BS that you cite MRG as a "successful example" when you are measuring success as skier visits.
A co-op has a completely different set of rules. If Mad River falls on hard times from a bad snow year, they still have the coop shareholders on the hook for a minimum annual purchase requirement. Mad River has no debt. Their replacement single chair was 2/3 funded through donations. They sold the 140 original single chairs for $240,000. The co-op only had to come up with about $250K out of their capital budget.
EMSC":2pjreku7 said:Geoff":2pjreku7 said:A co-op has a completely different set of rules. If Mad River falls on hard times from a bad snow year, they still have the coop shareholders on the hook for a minimum annual purchase requirement. Mad River has no debt. Their replacement single chair was 2/3 funded through donations. They sold the 140 original single chairs for $240,000. The co-op only had to come up with about $250K out of their capital budget.
Geoff, I think thats the whole point here. That there are different business models in the ski biz and can be "successful". Nearly every ski racing team in the US is a non-profit (including USST) Does that disqualify all of them from potentially being considered successful?