threecy
New member
Crowds, blackout periods, poor conditions, cramped/beaten up lodges, lack of lift maintenance, employee attitudes/moral, etc.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
All For One: Effect on the Northeast ski industry?
- Thread starter Greg
- Start date
Crowds, blackout periods, poor conditions, cramped/beaten up lodges, lack of lift maintenance, employee attitudes/moral, etc.
threecy
New member
eastcoastpowderhound said:
Lifts newer than 1980:
Modern C-Tec Quad
Modern Borvig Double
This Riblet's a bit older, but still a modern overhead drive
Modern Garventa/CTec Triple
For a local, mid sized area, Shawnee is by no means out of date. In fact, the lifts appear to be in better shape than most ASC lifts I've been on in the past 3-4 years.
Last edited:
OK, bear with me on this.
They had alot of debt and not enough money to pay it. You assert that the A41 was an attempt to maximize profits. But former ASC managers have said the pricing structure was a financial disaster. In the end, ASC went bankrupt.
They could have charged more for those passes and still gotten as many season pass sales, but they literally dumped those cheap passes on the market. Way too cheap. So, whether or not it would have saved ASC if they charged more, the A41 clearly did not work and ASC is bankrupt.
I am sure they will sell fewer passes in 07/08. To me that is not the issue. The issue is whether they will make more profit.
Look, I have this argument with my boss all the time. He wants to increase sales no matter what and will cut prices to do it. But there's a cutoff point where lowering the prices lead to diminishing returns. I'd rather make $2 million on $5 million in sales than $1.75 million on $10 million in sales.
essslsclsact
New member
Agree with several Recent Posts on the Economics ofA41
I have said for the past several years that ASC must have increased their net with the A41 or they would have increased the pricing more than minimal amounts that occurred. I believe this was true even though it may have just led to a smaller net loss to ASC because the debt was such a drain. Their analysis had to take total net revenue into account. Even with brown baggers having more folks on the hill must have translated into more overall sales of other than A41 pass dollars. In addition, they asked for the money earlier almost every year, again probably driven by their debt service needs and the time value of money.
I do beleive the A41 got more folks on the hills more often, and this was good for NE skiing, even with some overcrowding on the best weather weekends (at least at SL & SR).
Although many people may not have skied multiple mountains, this was certainly an attractive benefit of having the A41. I know some who skied at least 3 different areas and many that skied at 2 of them.
Looks like Mt. Snow/Attitash passes are priced to hit decent sales numbers, Killington sure sounds negative with all the seemingly poor customer service decisions made so far, and I don't know about how SL & SR will play out. Most of us Mainers are cautiously optimistic. However, skiers in MA (a big population state with lots of skiers) won't have the benefit of a pass good at many reachable destinations in ME, NH & VT so I expect their purchases of passes to drop off somewhat. Hence, total pass sales at all former ASC resorts will probably not total the A41 sales in number of passes. Certainly none of us can predict how the total revenue from pass sales will compare. By the way only ASC insiders probably know pass sales made through each resort, but I always wondered how ASC translated this into inidvidual resort revenue as a purchaser could have skied any number of times at any resort, and even could ski zero times at the resort where the pass was purchased.
I have said for the past several years that ASC must have increased their net with the A41 or they would have increased the pricing more than minimal amounts that occurred. I believe this was true even though it may have just led to a smaller net loss to ASC because the debt was such a drain. Their analysis had to take total net revenue into account. Even with brown baggers having more folks on the hill must have translated into more overall sales of other than A41 pass dollars. In addition, they asked for the money earlier almost every year, again probably driven by their debt service needs and the time value of money.
I do beleive the A41 got more folks on the hills more often, and this was good for NE skiing, even with some overcrowding on the best weather weekends (at least at SL & SR).
Although many people may not have skied multiple mountains, this was certainly an attractive benefit of having the A41. I know some who skied at least 3 different areas and many that skied at 2 of them.
Looks like Mt. Snow/Attitash passes are priced to hit decent sales numbers, Killington sure sounds negative with all the seemingly poor customer service decisions made so far, and I don't know about how SL & SR will play out. Most of us Mainers are cautiously optimistic. However, skiers in MA (a big population state with lots of skiers) won't have the benefit of a pass good at many reachable destinations in ME, NH & VT so I expect their purchases of passes to drop off somewhat. Hence, total pass sales at all former ASC resorts will probably not total the A41 sales in number of passes. Certainly none of us can predict how the total revenue from pass sales will compare. By the way only ASC insiders probably know pass sales made through each resort, but I always wondered how ASC translated this into inidvidual resort revenue as a purchaser could have skied any number of times at any resort, and even could ski zero times at the resort where the pass was purchased.
MadPadraic
Active member
If your arguing that ASC wasn't trying to make money, then I have to disagree. If you are arguing that ASC poorly judged the market and made bad decisions (as it appears Powdr may be doing) then I can't argue without seeing industry data
I, personally, am largely uninterested in the profits of NE ski areas. What I care about are (out of order) *) Price, *) Skiing late into Spring if conditions allow, and *) Resorts attempting to reduce their energy consumption.
ASC kept prices low. That was good for NE as far as I'm concerned. I (and a lot of people I know) would have purchased an A41, or possibly a threedom, but with price increases we won't. At least now we can feel less bad about fuel consumption as we drive to WaWa. :flag:
threecy
New member
ASC wasn't focussed on making money (they didn't) - they were trying to stay out of bankruptcy and get favorable books for potential sales.
ASC selling cheap passes is almost the same as a friend with a credit card debt problem giving all of his friends presents he can't actually afford.
ASC selling cheap passes is almost the same as a friend with a credit card debt problem giving all of his friends presents he can't actually afford.
Vortex
Member
AW I think ASC did this to compete with the booth creek Threedom pass. The day skiers at ASC resorts had passes know at Booth creek resorts. I was one of them. I bought property in the area.
Sure it was a cash flow thing with ASC, but they were losing people. I like cheap passes. A pass is a cover charge. I spend much more at the mountain.on other stuff than my ticket. I did not mind the crowds cause I was not paying much. The increase pass price was no longer making it a value. The trade off was not worth it anymore.
K is doing that know. Too much for to little. (one point of view beign heard) Mt snow/ attitash are makign out well cause of this I would guess.
This year Booth creeek raised the prices. Ski industry is moving from cheap passes to passes of value. So I'm moving to SR full time. There will be another cycle with change if 5 or so years I would guess.
Sure it was a cash flow thing with ASC, but they were losing people. I like cheap passes. A pass is a cover charge. I spend much more at the mountain.on other stuff than my ticket. I did not mind the crowds cause I was not paying much. The increase pass price was no longer making it a value. The trade off was not worth it anymore.
K is doing that know. Too much for to little. (one point of view beign heard) Mt snow/ attitash are makign out well cause of this I would guess.
This year Booth creeek raised the prices. Ski industry is moving from cheap passes to passes of value. So I'm moving to SR full time. There will be another cycle with change if 5 or so years I would guess.
No, I'm not arguing they weren't trying to make money. I'm arguing they made poor decisions about how to go about making money.
Do you ever think about the business end of the equation or just yourself? You don't care about ski areas making profits? Mad, if they don't make profit how do they operate?
I didn't need you to list your concerns: cheap passes, long season, green energy policies. You may as well throw in free lunch and a limo to the hill because you want the world for a song. If you don't care about profits, how do you propose they PAY for these things you want? Look, they're not going to do what ASC did and leverage themselves into insolvency. So you, the skier will have to pay.
This Walmart/welfare state mentality really floors me.
threecy
New member
essslsclsact
New member
Right on the Money
AMEN!! Well said. Without profits there will be no skiing ultimately. Also, most ASC areas in NE need some maintenance, upgrades and improvements, all of which will not occur without profits.
AMEN!! Well said. Without profits there will be no skiing ultimately. Also, most ASC areas in NE need some maintenance, upgrades and improvements, all of which will not occur without profits.
eastcoastpowderhound
New member
Lifts newer than 1980:
Modern C-Tec Quad
Modern Borvig Double
This Riblet's a bit older, but still a modern overhead drive
Modern Garventa/CTec Triple
For a local, mid sized area, Shawnee is by no means out of date. In fact, the lifts appear to be in better shape than most ASC lifts I've been on in the past 3-4 years.
Aww, that's neat, you just tried to prove me wrong with a quad that accesses lower level terrain...and has been there for well over a decade, the slowest double chair I've ever rode on...again, been there for at least 12 years...only accesses a beginner slope with about 20' of vert, a new motor on a very old lift, and a chair that is hardly ever open. They've painted the lodge since I started skiing there in '75...and they've changed the name too...you should post a pic of those improvements. The comparison was Shawnee vs Sugarloaf...you suggested to bigbog that he go to Shawnee as a substitute to the loaf...so how about grabbing some of the pics of what the loaf has done over the same time frame?
eastcoastpowderhound
New member
Um, no Jim, ASC has not gone "bankrupt" Yes, they've sold most of their assets, yes, they will be dissolving acc to the statements in their latest 14c posted on www.peaks.com yes, their stock is now worthless, but no, they have not already gone or even filed for bankruptcy. No chapter 7, no chapter 11. Saying they've gone bankrupt would be like someone saying you've gone bankrupt just because you sold your house and your car to pay off debts.
OK Mr. point of order...is it OK if I say that ASC is broke?
eastcoastpowderhound
New member
:smile: My father has told me I should have been a lawyer...I don't know how much $$ they've got in the bank...so not sure on the broke thing..."not long for this world" a "shell of its former self" "going buh bye" "soon to be extinct" but I think the most accurate term...according to the 14c posting, is "dissolving." Faster than leftover snow on a hot July day. Faster than an alka seltzer in vodka... ohh, speaking of vodka, time for the weekend! :beer: Thanks for another good week of banter Jim!
threecy
New member
Shawnee is not Sugarloaf and if I somehow led you to believe it was (I don't know where I said this, nor do I want to scan and figure that out), I apologize.
Shawnee does, however, seem like a nice mid-sized ski area. Every one of the lifts I posted photos of are modern - they're not detaches (that mountain would be ruined if each of one those were detaches), but they are just about as good as a brand new fixed grip lift. Compare Shawnee's lifts to most any other mid sized ski area (save for the detach details) and Shawnee stacks up just well. Frankly, I feel kind of spoiled to have a night skiing facility like Shawnee near where I live.
threecy
New member
If what I hear is correct, then yes, they are broke - shareholders will be walking away with just about nothing after the liquidation. Call it a voluntary bankruptcy if you want to.
MadPadraic
Active member
As far as the business end of the equation, I'm not a shareholder in any New England ski areas, nor do I hold notes from any--though I might consider shorting Powdr if they were public. In this case I think about myself and other consumers. How could a company possibly operate without regular profits? I refer you to Jaguar, Amazon, US Air, or the Queen Park Rangers.
As a participant in the industry, I was listing factors that impact decisions. By the way, a limo to the hill wouldn't be very energy efficient, but, better train service would be nice. If passes are cheap, then I buy my lunch. How did the A41 pass impact the industry? More people were able to own passes. Now that its gone, prices are rising and less skiing will be had.
Pay for the things I want? Well I don't want increased snowmaking or more high speed lifts (energy consumption, but see if my tune changes in december). I want a long season, but my stance is simple: I will not buy a season pass to a mountain which will not be aggressive with their closing date. If you're so concerned about ski area profits than write them a check, but I'll only support the mountains that offer a product that suits me.
This may be the first time anyone has associated Walmart with a welfare state. I'm impressed..
Mad, you are a great addition to the principles in this debate. Again, I admire your tenacity and determination to make your points.
It would be nice to have a nice long season without increased snowmaking to impact the environment. But I think you'll need a holodeck from the 23rd century to get your wish.
You might get a bicycle to pedal to the mountain if you ask nicely though.
eastcoastpowderhound
New member
I think you misunderstand those of us who are pushing the counterpoint...we're not suggesting that our resorts give us everything for free...no one has suggested they accept food stamps in the cafeteria or lower beer prices to 10% above cost...what we're defending is that there are more ways for the resort to make money than just season pass sales...and the more folks you can get to the hill the more potential you have to make additional revenue off of them. If pass prices get too high for many folks to justify they'll vote with their wallets...and won't patronize those resorts...and if that happens in significant numbers it certainly won't help the resorts become any more profitable.
Just because ASC's pass pricing strategy wasn't able to save them from being dismantled doesn't mean that its the pass pricing strategy that was the final nail in the coffin...for all we know it might have kept them around another year longer than they would have lasted with a typical pass program. I think almost everyone here will agree that they were in financial trouble right from the start.
Let's not push the welfare comment too far...all I was trying to say is it seems people want something for nothing. Bottom line is someone has to pay, just like welfare. The Walmart comment was along those lines too...all I'm saying is you get what you pay for. Go cheap, you get junk.
The folks more likely to spend alot of money on resort amenities may not have the same demands of the skiing experience (long season, primo snowmaking, interesting terrain) as the folks who post here.
I know that the AZ faithful think we know alot and we do, but we don't know everything. We may not be POWDR's target audience.
Similar threads
