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!
I think it's an interesting idea that is also creative. If I had to pick a deficiency in the plan is that it doesn't contemplate a high speed option from the base to service advanced terrain. I think there should be some easy to access lift from the bottom that just delivers every time. When Wescott proposed a signature lift in 2009 after the recession, it still received a lot of support. There were some productive discussions around interesting ways to finance it. Now the economy is a little more stable and by next year Sugarloaf may very well have a new owner (potentially with deeper pockets). Currently the Super Quad is our signature lift from the base. I'm not sure removing and replacing with a hot Bucksaw chair would qualify as our KT-22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUjTr_l2BdQ
I would never look a "gift" HKD SV10 Impulse snow gun in the nozzle, but to assume the devil's advocate perspective, and I understand this is hyperbolic, new snow guns do nothing for you when your ski lifts are literally trying to murder you. My perspective is this-- I grew up in Maine until I was 18 then moved out of state for job opportunities. When I am trying to convince my New England friends to drive a bunch of hours to Maine to enjoy my favorite home mountain with me, you'd rather have them say, isn't that the place that just put in a bunch of new lifts versus isn't that the place where a bunch of people got dropped from lifts. I know they're doing a good job retrofitting repairs and safety features but a major investment in new cool lifts would resolve the perception problem. If you're seeking uncrowded slopes maybe you don't mind the perception problem because you know its actually safe following the anti-rollback and lift removal initiatives. I'm just looking at it from a business perspective cause my head kind of works like that.
Yes, in the past they seem to have bounced back nicely. Sugarloaf skiers are incredibly loyal. The core faithful will always be there. I think where you run into problems is in the area of growth... the marginal NH family or Montreal spring breakers that have options and may be on the fence about booking. Then there is the issue of what could have been... maybe visitors were up 3% last year and could have been up 5% (illustrative) without the accidents and with timely and sensible upgrades.
I would say that separating out visitation from business competitiveness, as it is currently configured, the lift system at Sugarloaf is unsustainable. I went on New England Ski History to do a quick tally of average lift age for each resort. Here is the average lift age of several of Sugarloaf's competitors (includes old T-bars and Poma Lifts): Sugarloaf (31.5 yrs including Bucksaw, 30.3 without it), Killington (27.0 years), Sunday River (22.3 years), Loon Mountain (23.4 years), Stowe (17.1 years), Jay Peak (22.7 years), Stratton (23.6 years), Sugarbush (23.0 years). So the good news is that Killington is in the same camp as Sugarloaf in terms of an aging lift system that needs to be addressed. The bad news is that the rest of Sugarloaf's competition is almost a decade ahead of them in terms of lift capacity. It's not just that Sugarloaf can hang on by a thread now. It's the fact that over the next ten years, Sugarloaf will have "catch up" deferred capital expenditures, perhaps $10 million, that needs to be spent just to tread water relative to its competition (from the standpoint of safety if nothing else). Whatever the amount of catch-up capital expenditures happens to be is money that can't be spent on other important projects such as base lodge improvements, hospitality, infrastructure, etc. So from a competitiveness standpoint, being behind the eight ball on lifts is not ideal as it affects the entire resort. It's also somewhat of an albatross from the standpoint of potential buyers. Stowe and Stratton are smart because they have huge capacity but do it with relatively few lifts (11 each).
Yup, I hear you regarding Killington. Most of these resorts have 1 or 2 clunkers (though not necessarily unsafe if they are surface lifts). Loon, Jay Peak, and Sugarbush all have a clunker or two from the 1960's. I left them all in for the sake of consistency. You could say even Sugarloaf looks worse than it is since Snubber, Sawduster, Skidway, and Double Runners are not as dangerous since they are baby lifts but anything can happen.
You are absolutely 100% correct. It's cause and effect, symptom and affliction. You don't know the average age of the lifts but you see news articles in the paper and people talking about the accidents. We wouldn't even be talking about this issue at all if we we didn't see the symptoms.
