How resorts are managed North America - pros and cons

[DanoT]

The whole thing is connected, as it directly relates to the business model. If you look at a resort like WB - they control EVERYTHING in mountain, and monetise the whole thing. Whereas somewhere like (for example) Tignes the only thing they really control and monetise is the lifts and slopes.

The above statement about WB controlling everything is inaccurate. WB owns all mid mountain dinning but the vast majority of the Whistler village is not owned by the ski corp. And there is an elected mayor and town council that were responsible for the original village layout and overseeing of the building and currant operating of the Whistler village.

Big White controls its village and all ski shops are ski corp owned. Nippon Cable owns Sun Peaks and basically started from scratch in 1992 to build a community at Sun Peaks and allowed independent owned ski shops and other retail stores. The SP Ski Corp owns 1 hotel, 8 retail shops and 7 restaurants/snack bars, with everything else independently owned.

The provincial government eventually created the Resort Municipality of Sun Peaks with an elected mayor and council and with the SP Ski Corp getting their own appointed seat on the town council.

All of the ski resorts in B.C. started out as small local hills (often on the lower reaches of a large mountain) that served local skiers in a nearby town.

All of B.C. ski resorts are built on "Crown Land" owned by the provincial government, not the feds, and historically every provincial government whether they be politically left or right leaning, are pro ski area expansion. The business model is such that the government approves a long term master plan, and since the government still owns the land and the trees that are cut to create runs, they get paid a logging stumpage fee when new runs are cut. This give the Provincial Forest Service incentive for logging plan approval.

As far as village or base facilities go, the ski corp pays for sewer, road, electric infrastructure and then the provincial government sells that land to the ski corp at below market price. The ski corp can then build lodging, shops and houses or sell the land to real estate developers at a profit.

Most of the ski resorts in B.C. are foreign owned and independent with afaik only Whistler being majority owned by a publicly traded on the stock market company.

The low value Cdn dollar makes skiing in Canada relatively cheap, but air travel is not. The small 5M population of B.C. (with 2.8M living in and around Vancouver) means that every resort not named Whistler is not crowed.

 

[Saintsman]

Which was why I said they control everything on Mountain. And didn't say "the whole resort"

Whereas in Europe, the company runs the lifts and the grooming. Most of everything else is owned and operated independently, either by local retailers or largely local councils

 

[SBrown]

Better/worse can and does have different meanings here. I think that on the whole, on mountain dining in Europe is probably of a higher quality from a dining perspective - and at a lower cost. But the customer experience can be inconsistent due to the lack of a single overall plan/management.

I imagine that would be the case in comparing most dining situations between continents, not just skiing.

 

[pais alto]

I imagine that would be the case in comparing most dining situations between continents, not just skiing.

During a visit to France not too long ago I developed the conviction that the French do not fuck around about food. They take it very seriously. Big contrast to the US.

 

[Jerez]

We had a family friend who was one of the original investors in Aspen. He did it by buying the one of the lifts. I think his sister owned several. So at least in the beginning the lifts were privately owned. They didn't operate them but each received some small amount based on ridership.

 

[Cheizz]

During a visit to France not too long ago I developed the conviction that the French do not fuck around about food. They take it very seriously. Big contrast to the US.

Nor do the Italians.
Even in Austria, Switzerland and Germany the food may be not the thing they're famous for. But at least it is not just some type of fast food that is served on piste, 80% of the time.

 

[DanoT]

During a visit to France not too long ago I developed the conviction that the French do not fuck around about food. They take it very seriously. Big contrast to the US.

"The British eat to live, the French live to eat". This is evidenced by each countries food.

 

[Saintsman]

"The British eat to live, the French live to eat". This is evidenced by each countries food.

When was the last time you ate in the UK? Even at the cheap end of the market it's pretty good stuff these days - and a ridiculously wide variety. I'd say the only thing we do badly is Mexican - if the "good" stuff in London is very average at best.

I'd also add that it's pretty easy to find bad French restaurants in France; Italy is probably the highest overall standard IMHO

 

[DanoT]

When was the last time you ate in the UK? Even at the cheap end of the market it's pretty good stuff these days - and a ridiculously wide variety. I'd say the only thing we do badly is Mexican - if the "good" stuff in London is very average at best.

I'd also add that it's pretty easy to find bad French restaurants in France; Italy is probably the highest overall standard IMHO

All I can say is that I have heard the term French Cuisine but never British Cuisine.
Also in Canada food in general is considered more special in Quebec than the rest of Canada. Its as much about an attitude toward food than the food itself.

 

[Saintsman]

All I can say is that I have heard the term French Cuisine but never British Cuisine.
Also in Canada food in general is considered more special in Quebec than the rest of Canada. Its as much about an attitude toward food as the food itself.

My experience is that in a modern era the terminology doesn't really apply. French cuisine in particular really refers more to the idea of the process and presentation involved these days, rather than a dish beng particularly "French". Inside France you still get traditional French cuisines (notably dishes like Cassoulet), but that type of cuisine is not what the average European, and definitely not what the average North American would be thinking of when asked to define French cuisine - they would be thinking much more along the lines of nouvelle cuisine.

I will happily accept that there is no such thing as British cuisine per se (other than Fish and chips, and somewhat bizarrely the Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Cantonese hybrids). From a food perspective we are genuinely multi-cultural. But at the high end, there is a definite difference between what you get here vs anywhere else in the world, and there's stuff going on - notably Heston Blumenthal, but there are others - that simply doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. Just as there's things like Noma in Denmark that simply blow anything in France out of the water

 

[pais alto]

I will happily accept that there is no such thing as British cuisine per se (other than Fish and chips, and somewhat bizarrely the Anglo-Indian and Anglo-Cantonese hybrids and boiled beef).

I just added a little bit there, because one of my grandmas was a Brit and that’s how she fixed beef, claiming it was heritage.

 

[Saintsman]

I just added a little bit there, because one of my grandmas was a Brit and that’s how she fixed beef, claiming it was heritage.

Fair enough. I have no idea where you might find that today

 

[Tim Hodgson]

Just a comment from a low level peanut in the gallery of ski instructors at a local resort owned by a large company that owns and manages at least 11 ski resorts nationally and internationally.

From my observation and surmise, having a national/international company with centralized managers to manage the company-wide nonspecific resort items including uniform purchases (notice most of us ski instructors look like blueberries? lift ops and mountain safety are in all black, ticket scanners are dressed in red, snowboard instructors are blue coats with black pants, Patrol is red coat with black pants), human resource training and administration, payroll, ski safety training videos, mandatory Covid-19 health screenings/temperature check before being allowed to work each day, etc. likely facilitates bulk buying at a lower purchase price than the stand alone resorts can obtain. Just my guess from watching my resort go from a stand alone locally-owned resort to being folded in to a national/international resort company.

While our local on mountain management handles the resort-specific issues which definitely vary from resort to resort across the larger company.

From the skier's side, my guess is that being able to allocate company-wide income to specific resorts as snow conditions and attendance variations occur throughout a season probably means that the product can be held consistent even when local conditions or attendance rates vary.

Also from the skier's side, my guess, is that the larger company's financial wizards can look at the projected income to the company as a whole and then set the price for multi-resort season passes at the lowest price possible to keep all of the resorts open and still make the larger company a profit. And again, having income from multiple resorts must allow the company to help out resorts which have a lower income due to bad snow conditions, etc.

My local bosses control our mountain. The big bosses at the national/international company oversee the top-level managers at the local mountains.

From my small perspective, this combination management paradigm seems to work really, really well.

Now on to Ikon. Ikon makes sense to me, it is the closest that a bunch of independently-owned resorts can come to competing against a larger company which owns multiple resorts, like my employer.

I like competition. It makes my employer a better company. Keeps them on their toes. The free market is the best way in the World to ensure that the best service and products make it to the consumer, including skiers.

But do the Ikon member resorts have the bulk buying power that a larger company like my employer has? I doubt it, since all the uniforms, etc. seem to vary across the various Ikon resorts.

Right now it seems like there are three types of ski mountain management in the U.S.:

1. National/international multi-resort company;
2. Independently-owned ski resorts joined together for multi-resort pass sales via the Ikon.
3. Independently-owned ski resorts not members of Ikon.

Sierra-at-Tahoe is one of the latter. From the outside, to me it seems to do well financially. It has a half-pipe. It sponsors pro-riders Jamie Anderson, Maddie Bowman, Hannah Teter, and Kyle Smaine. Sierra-at-Tahoe is actually closer to me than the resort where I have taught since 1997. I was a Mountain Host at Sierra-at-Tahoe on Sundays for a while. I like it. It is a great resort, but for teaching and skiing I like my resort better. But, no doubt, Sierra-at-Tahoe has found their niche which has allowed them to stay in business without being purchased by a larger company and without having to join Ikon. (Personally, I wish they would join Ikon so I could ski there as part of my Ikon pass . . .)

 

[Bill Miles]

Back to the food:

My first visit to England, I was pleasantly surprised that they had cold beer and good food.

I made several trips to France and liked the food, but when we had a committee meeting in the U.S. and went to a steakhouse, the French guy on the committee sure liked it.

 

[Jacob]

I’m a bit late on this, but I can weigh in on some of the differences between the resorts I’ve been to in UT and CO and those in the Alps.

For me, the big difference is that, in the Alps, the ski resort is the town, whereas in UT and CO, the resort is down the road from the town (apart from Aspen). I think this separation is one of the big reasons why US resorts can be run like theme parks, where one company manages practically everything and is selling to a captive (for the day) audience. As a result, the lifts are treated like amusement park rides and the food sometimes feels like overpriced junk food.

In the Alps, the resorts feel more like beach towns, where the lifts are seen as public transport and there are multiple owners running the shops, ski schools, and F&B outlets, which results in more options and lower prices.

Despite growing up in the US and learning to ski in CO, I personally prefer the European model. I find it more convenient, and I don’t get the same feeling of being fleeced.

 

[Tony S]

My experience is that in a modern era the terminology doesn't really apply. French cuisine in particular really refers more to the idea of the process and presentation involved these days, rather than a dish beng particularly "French". Inside France you still get traditional French cuisines (notably dishes like Cassoulet), but that type of cuisine is not what the average European, and definitely not what the average North American would be thinking of when asked to define French cuisine - they would be thinking much more along the lines of nouvelle cuisine.

You can probably get top notch cuisine in any first world city at this point, if you're willing and able to pay for it. What makes France and Italy special, in my limited experience, is the attitude toward and execution of meals in everyday settings, in rural areas, and at multiple price points. Great food in those countries is not the province of the rich and the urbane; the ability and commitment to produce and appreciate it is a point of pride for nearly everyone, it seems.

 

[Tex]

I have the sense that in the US (and Canada?) things started off a bit differently. More as a business opportunity in a big bang kind of way as opposed to the more organic process that we see in most European areas. Is that the case?

That has been my thinking over the last 40 years I have been sking. Europe, for the most part, the towns were there first, then they put up the lifts. US, for the most part, they flew around in a helicopter looking for the best ski hill, they put the lifts up, and then came the town. Like Vail, they flew around, saw those bowls, and said OMG lets put Vail here! There are exception, like Aspen, it is my understanding the town was there before the lift.

 

[Jerez]

You may be right that many resorts were ski area first and town never or town later, but plenty the other way around..... Off the top of my thinkin' part:
Aspen, Sun Valley, Jackson Hole, Taos, Pajarito, Ski Santa Fe, Telluride, Whitefish (maybe national park first, town second, not sure), Steamboat, Crested Butte, Silverton. Pretty sure some back east too, but not that familiar with east coast.

 

[dbostedo]

There are exception, like Aspen,

And Telluride, and Crested Butte, and Sun Valley, and Whitefish, and Park City, and a few others ... most (all?) were mining towns. Plus lots of New England places that were towns first.

EDIT - I see Jerez beat me to it, and with more examples.

 

[Jacob]

@Jerez and @dbostedo , in all of those examples except Aspen and maybe Telluride, even though the towns existed before the ski areas, the towns themselves are not the bases of the ski areas. The bases are down the road from the towns, so there’s still an element of what @Tex was talking about in terms of scoping out terrain to make a purpose-built ski resorts.

On a side note, I don’t include Park City as being based in the town, despite the Town Lift. The main bases are down the road.