Northeast 2006-07 Skier Visits Down 6.7%

[Greg]

Some prelim. data:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/NEWS/70508007

Amazing how dependent ski areas are on Christmas Week and MLK Weekend. Despite an awesome second 2/3 of this season we still fell below 2005-06 which most would consider pretty crappy overall. I recall December 2005 being very good with nice stretches of extended cold which probably set up most areas for a good Christmas week. I think January - April 2006 was pretty weak though. Strange how vital Christmas Week seems to be when the best skiing is in February and March which were stellar months this season. We need to change this way of thinking. I know I'm not going to bust my ass to get out in December next season and will save the majority of my V-Days for February and March.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

It makes sense, though, if you think about it. Christmas week provides 7-10 straight days of holiday business that can drastically affect overall skier visits.

For example, an area that normally does, say, 6000 skier visits on an average Saturday/holiday has the opportunity to get upwards of 30-45000+ skier visits in one week alone. This year, that same fictitious area might have only done 2-3000 visits per day Christmas week, dropping from 30-45000 visits to more like 14-20000 for the whole week. That's a pretty big difference.

Then add the MLK weekend, which could easily account for 8-9000 visits on both Saturday and Sunday for that same ski area that normally does 6000 on a weekend. Now we're talking another couple thousand skier visit difference.

It really is staggering how crucial those two holidays are to the operation of a ski area. If they aren't successful, then you lose your numbers.

 

[Greg]

It makes sense, though, if you think about it.

It really doesn't make sense though from a skier perspective in that reliable skiing at the end of December just doesn't exist, where it does moreso in February and March. I guess the issue is virtually all schools are out on Christmas Week while grade school winter breaks in February and college spring breaks in March are staggered so there's no one "big" week like Christmas. I guess my point is why do folks plan the big family ski trip for Christmas when the conditions are marginal vs. mid-winter break when better skiing is more probable as was the case this season?

 

[BushMogulMaster]

It really doesn't make sense though from a skier perspective in that reliable skiing at the end of December just doesn't exist, where it does moreso in February and March. I guess the issue is virtually all schools are out on Christmas Week while grade school winter breaks in February and college spring breaks in March are staggered so there's no one "big" week like Christmas. I guess my point is why do folks plan the big family ski trip for Christmas when the conditions are marginal vs. mid-winter break when better skiing is more probable as was the case this season?

This I agree with. I was just speaking as to why the numbers are the way they are, and why those holidays are so important.

I personally think making the effort to plan your only ski week in December is just plain stupid. But then, that's just me. :wink:

 

[nycskier]

The fact that the Northeast was only down 6.7% says a lot about how great the late season was this year.

Keep in mind that a lot of ski resorts (especially those in the catskills and pokonoes) didn't open until well into January.

In fact this was the 1st ski season in 2 or 3 years that I didn't ski in November!

If ski visits was only down 6.7% after the loss of the early season I say it was a pretty good year all in all.

 

[win]

At one point skier visits were off nearly 35% early in the season, so many did recover a lot in the late season. An area that has say 300,000 visits will have seen 18,000 to 20,000 fewer visits on average this year and that can translate into a loss of $700,000 to $1,2000,000 in revenue depending on their particular yield per visit. This is more than enough to turn a small profit into a loss. The industry is highly dependent upon about 20 days during the season. Bushmogulmaster was correct in his analysis of what just a weak MLK weekend can do to the economics. The ski industry is a highly leveraged operating business like the airline business.

 

[Greg]

The fact that the Northeast was only down 6.7% says a lot about how great the late season was this year.

I think it says more about how much better December 2005 was compared to December 2006. Remember, 2005-06 overall was a much crappier season than this year, yet we saw less skier visits this season, most likely due to a better Christmas Week in 2005.

 

[Vortex]

Cause that is when the kids are not in school. Most companies let people take x-mass week off or even give a few extra days off. Its the perfect time to go. Timing, plus people save all year long with x-mass clubs or get a bonus. Time and Money.

X-mass presents get used on the slope. Tickets may be a present.. Sometimes the weather does not agree. We go every year no matter what. I take alot of April and March days off to ski, but x-mass week will always be taken off with the family.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

At one point skier visits were off nearly 35% early in the season, so many did recover a lot in the late season. An area that has say 300,000 visits will have seen 18,000 to 20,000 fewer visits on average this year and that can translate into a loss of $700,000 to $1,2000,000 in revenue depending on their particular yield per visit. This is more than enough to turn a small profit into a loss. The industry is highly dependent upon about 20 days during the season. Bushmogulmaster was correct in his analysis of what just a weak MLK weekend can do to the economics. The ski industry is a highly leveraged operating business like the airline business.

A ski area with roughly 300,000 skier visits? This is all, of course, hypothetical. :wink:

 

[2knees]

i wonder about the further financial impact of the furious recovery efforts areas were forced to undertake just to remain open through december and early january. Were some areas forced to overshoot their budgets for snowmaking for the year based on the constant rain and warm ups? Most areas dont make much or any snow after feb vacation anyway so i doubt they saved any money by not making snow once the weather turned. If that is the case, then the loss of revenue would be even more impactful then the 6.7% decrease would indicate.

 

[Geoff]

At one point skier visits were off nearly 35% early in the season, so many did recover a lot in the late season. An area that has say 300,000 visits will have seen 18,000 to 20,000 fewer visits on average this year and that can translate into a loss of $700,000 to $1,2000,000 in revenue depending on their particular yield per visit. This is more than enough to turn a small profit into a loss. The industry is highly dependent upon about 20 days during the season. Bushmogulmaster was correct in his analysis of what just a weak MLK weekend can do to the economics. The ski industry is a highly leveraged operating business like the airline business.

I don't understand what leverage (debt financing) has to do with the rest of your paragraph. Do you mean to say that the ski industry has high fixed costs? That's certainly true since you have to pay your staff, pay property taxes, spin the lifts, heat the base lodge, make snow, and pay the insurance bill as a fairly fixed number regardless of your skier visits.

Christmas is particularly important to resorts since that is when they get their absolute highest skier yields. Those customers typically use the resort 800 number to book lodging. They use the ski school. They rent equipment. They eat in the cafeteria. The typical weekend traffic doesn't behave this way. If you have a soft Christmas, it makes a huge crater in the bottom line. With snowmaking, Christmas is now a fairly reliable time slot. You can at least get your novice and intermediate terrain online to service your Christmas market.

 

[Breeze]

unfortunately, the < hard core skier preferences> and <the bean counters > seldom wind up on the same page.
I'm sure there is an answer, that is what AZ is all about.

Breeze

 

[riverc0il]

Bear in mind this 6.7% decrease is only down compared to last years record. As the article points out, the decline compared to the 10 year average is not very large. Hard to compare this year to a record year. As I mentioned else where, instead of thinking about the industry's results through the perspective of how much the early season hurt the industry, another take on the issue is how much the industry in this region recovered due to awesome conditions from mid-January right through late April with perhaps only two weekends that were not good if not excellent. Things could have been a LOT worse for the industry in this region if not for the excellent recovery.*

*On second reading, that article is not very specific on exactly which state those statistics are referencing. Many numbers are through out without specificaiton of region and also without noting if it is comparison to the previous year, record year, or 10 year average. Those references are occasionally but inconsistantly addressed at varying points throughout the article, but not specific enough in a number of places.

Or... perhaps I should try to do statistical analysis after having an HiPA.

 

[jerryg]

So then, how did individual resorts/mountains do? I realize this is a broad question and it would be far to easy to say Mt. XXX had 650,000 skier visits compared to ZZZ Mountain which did 475,000. This is obviously not the best marker of how a ski resort did for the year because Mt. XXX's overhead (i.e., amount of snowmaking, number of lifts run) might be twice that of ZZZ Mountain and thus it would seem ZZZ would come out better financially in the end.

With that in mind, and hopefully making the slightest bit of sense, do we know how particular resorts did? Who made a profit vs. who was in the black?

 

[Greg]

Bear in mind this 6.7% decrease is only down compared to last years record. As the article points out, the decline compared to the 10 year average is not very large. Hard to compare this year to a record year. As I mentioned else where, instead of thinking about the industry's results through the perspective of how much the early season hurt the industry, another take on the issue is how much the industry in this region recovered due to awesome conditions from mid-January right through late April with perhaps only two weekends that were not good if not excellent. Things could have been a LOT worse for the industry in this region if not for the excellent recovery.*

*On second reading, that article is not very specific on exactly which state those statistics are referencing. Many numbers are through out without specificaiton of region and also without noting if it is comparison to the previous year, record year, or 10 year average. Those references are occasionally but inconsistantly addressed at varying points throughout the article, but not specific enough in a number of places.

Last year was definitely not a record year for the Northeast. Nationwide, it was and was carried for the most part by Colorado.

Or... perhaps I should try to do statistical analysis after having an HiPA.

Now you're talking! :beer:

 

[thetrailboss]

It really doesn't make sense though from a skier perspective in that reliable skiing at the end of December just doesn't exist, where it does moreso in February and March. I guess the issue is virtually all schools are out on Christmas Week while grade school winter breaks in February and college spring breaks in March are staggered so there's no one "big" week like Christmas. I guess my point is why do folks plan the big family ski trip for Christmas when the conditions are marginal vs. mid-winter break when better skiing is more probable as was the case this season?

True, but we here in AZ, for the most part, are not the "average" skier and rider. The "average" skier and rider go for a few days at Christmas time, on MLK Weekend, on President's Weekend and then call it quits. Two out of three of those holidays were no-shows (except at Killington). It wasn't marginal. It was terrible on those days.... That hurt.

Ski areas always close because they run out of skiers and riders before snow....this year is a prime example. We got the goods, but the average person is really looking forward to getting out early in the season. After President's Day, folks are thinking golf and warm weather stuff...

 

[thetrailboss]

Good point that there was an incredible recovery....very true. I heard that President's Week was amazing for $$$$. But it did not make up for the other two holidays....still amazing though.

 

[takeahike46er]

Some did well.

I would presume that mountains that typically cater to the day-trip skier as opposed to the destination skier did reasonably well or ran flat. For example, Gore visitation was up 23 percent! With few condos or lodging in the immediate area of the mountain, Gore relies on day-trippers from the capital region.