Well, let Saddleback go detachable on Rangley. Better hope they start pulling upwards of not North of at least 125K visits/year or they will likely be headed back towards NELSAP. The amount of extra yearly maintenance/operational costs of a detach vs FG will require that. And before some note examples like Burke with 2 detaches, they have been owned by Jay and thus could cost/revenue share across the group prior to receivership (and probably still within it as well). A better example may be Ascutney. They put in a HSQ and it wasn't long before they were gone and they were much closer to population bases than Saddleback. What did Saddleback peak out at under the Berry's for annual skier visits? Did they ever hit 100K?
Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app
Ascutney is the cautionary tale. Burke is indeed more complicated (I thought the lower high speed lift was pre Jay though). I hear you that this raises the visitor visit bar to justify the investment and related maintenance.
The pro-detachable argument is that a shiny toy is needed to lure enough intermediate-heavy skiers up to Rangeley (and past so many other options) to justify operating the business. To bring me onto your side of the fence, I'd need to understand why you think enough people would show up for a fixed grip option. As you well know, Saddleback is outside of day trip range for much of it's target visitor base. Good infrastructure is important to get people to make that type of a commitment. I'd gladly ride a fixed lift a few times a day, but I acknowledge that is an obvious sticking point for many.
Regarding visits, I thought I saw 110k was peak for them in the press releases. Don't have time to check though. I know this was mentioned before, but I'd be curious to know if a high speed option helps win a super pass partnership arrangement, too. Saddleback could be attractive to either pass offering to help spread people out. Obviously that would help to get visits/revenue up.
Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app