F Vail

[Benny Profane]

Lawyer in me says don't matter. It's like when you walk away from a house closing "as is" after the inspectors sign off. Now it's your problem.

 

[Harvey]

Looking at the US as a whole, skiing has never been a middle class sport IMHO. Yes skiing was even more an elitist sport in its formative years, which surely means at least through the 1950's. Which brings to mind the question, "When if ever was skiing not an elitist sport in the US?"

I suspected the answer based upon the data set of Mammoth skier visits, which more than tripled between two excellent (for apples-to-apples comparison) seasons in 1968-69 and 1977-78. FYI Mammoth's skier visits 2015-16 to 2018-19 averaged about the same as in 1977-78.

A cursory Google search led here.


That report is an interesting read, and reminds me of one of the ski guidebooks I bought in 1979.


Rapid growth of western ski terrain slowed in the 1970's, so authors like these predicted overcrowding and capacity limits. The Kottke Report has tracked US skier visits since 1978-79, when it was 50.2 million. Last year was 59.1 million and the record in 2007-08 and 2010-11 was 60.5 million. To no surprise with the advent of high speed lifts, I can tell you that the worst lift lines I've experienced by far were those in the late 1970's.

But what really happened since 1980? The current active skier/snowboarder population is estimated at 9-10 million, 3-4% of the US population. So the percentage of the US population that skis has fallen back to about what it was in 1973. The "popular era of skiing" with consistent growth looks to me to be maybe late 1960's to mid-1980's. US skier visits were flat from the mid-1980's to late 1990's.

All of this tells me that I'm a typical US skier in some ways. My first time was in 1976, right in the middle of that explosive boom period, and age 23 is in a common starting age range too. The people in my age cohort who started as kids were mostly an elite group.

That reference also mentioned that in the 1970's 44% of skier visits were in the Northeast (now it's under 25%). What that tells me is that skiing was much more a local daytrip/weekend sport then. I know that was true when I started out because the financial commitment as a beginner to try skiing back then was quite modest if you weren't traveling and paying for hotels and restaurants. In those late 1970's seasons the proportion of my skiing that was local SoCal daytrip was 48% and the rest was at Mammoth aside from a couple of days at Tahoe. By contrast the SoCal proportion of my skiing from 2011-2019 was 3%.

For you Northeasterners daytrip skiing in the 1970's was even easier than for me because you didn't have to improvise clothing for which you had no need in daily living. In conclusion, skiing was a middle class sport for a small window of time when the baby boomers were in the 16-29 age bracket and even then only in locations within easy daytrip distance of ski areas. I realize these locations apply to 90+% of active members of this forum but not so much to the majority of the US population today.

The convenience factor also plays a supporting role upon skiing being much more of a middle class sport in the Alps. There would be more resistance to the Vail-type model in Europe IMHO.

A lot to unpack there. Much of it makes sense to me.

I believe that back when skiing was more local, the average income of skiers was more... average.

 

[not2brite]

I agree with Harvey on this one. I grew up 30 minutes from Hunter. Pretty standard middle class town. IBM was the biggest employer in the area. Wealthiest people were mostly local business owners. No one was really what you would consider rich, but no one really had to struggle either. Used gear, hand me downs, and cheap tickets. Cost just wasn't really an issue. Getting a ride before you were old enough to drive was probably the biggest obstacle.

 

[tirolski]

I agree with Harvey on this one. I grew up 30 minutes from Hunter. Pretty standard middle class town. IBM was the biggest employer in the area. Wealthiest people were mostly local business owners. No one was really what you would consider rich, but no one really had to struggle either. Used gear, hand me downs, and cheap tickets. Cost just wasn't really an issue. Getting a ride before you were old enough to drive was probably the biggest obstacle.

You n Harvey are going a bit off topic. But I agree with ya.
Fuck Vail.

 

[tirolski]

That’s true but does it apply here? Do we have some reason to think it was operator error?

State Fire Marshal Sean Toomey said that the incident happened around noon Saturday on the Snowcat triple chair."It started as a misload of a chair, and the chair began to swing," Toomey said. "It hit the tower right as it started to head up the mountain, and it detached from the cable.”... Toomey said the lift will remain closed while they conduct a full investigation of the incident. The lift will then need to be tested and approved by the chief tramway inspector. The investigation should take about a week.

Man seriously injured after falling from Wildcat ski lift chair

Lift will remain closed pending investigation.

www.wmur.com

 

[abe]

Ancient lifts are not inherently unsafe if maintained and accidents happen on both old and new lifts. Lots of lifts around far older than the one in question at Wildcat

 

[TonyC]

I believe that back when skiing was more local, the average income of skiers was more... average.

This is the point Harvey and I agree upon. Relative to income, is skiing more expensive now than in the 1970's? That depends upon what aspect of skiing. Some aspects are definitely cheaper: season passes, air travel, clothing. Used gear is surely easier to come by now online. I pulled an edge out of my second line Bonafides Dec. 31 and bought a comparable pair off Craigslist 3 days later. For avid skiers that put in a lot of days per season, my guess is that skiing is less expensive overall than 40 years ago.

The problem is that the aspects of skiing that are more expensive are barriers to new entrants: day tickets, lessons, day care for kids below ski age.

 

[Campgottagopee]

I believe that back when skiing was more local, the average income of skiers was more... average.

If I didn't grow up next to a ski hill I never would've skied. I'd guess location is the biggest hurdle when it comes to the sport. You don't need fancy anything to do it.
And yeah, F Vail.

 

[tirolski]

For avid skiers that put in a lot of days per season, my guess is that skiing is less expensive overall than 40 years ago.

The problem is that the aspects of skiing that are more expensive are barriers to new entrants: day tickets, lessons, day care for kids below ski age.

Get food&bev at a Fail resort & it can be more than their bait ya to come epicpass price that only drops ya into the epic-failshow.

 

[Harvey]

All IMO:

This is not off topic at all. It goes directly at the issue with Vail's model. They are capitalizing on a long established love for skiing, while doing little to bring in more skiers.

Going back to the poll, it's not inherently evil, it's just bad for the sport.