Who gets to ski? NYT article

[Getting Ready]

Who Gets to Ski? (Published 2022)

The mountains are too crowded. The sport is too expensive. Several resorts are trying to fix a number of problems. How are they doing?

www.nytimes.com

Interesting and kind of a bummer read.

 

[Abbi]

Who Gets to Ski? (Published 2022)

The mountains are too crowded. The sport is too expensive. Several resorts are trying to fix a number of problems. How are they doing?

www.nytimes.com

Interesting and kind of a bummer read.

Saw it this morning. Agree with your assessment. Things to mull over …

 

[snoWYmonkey]

So many issues, lack of inclusion, crowds, prohibitive costs. Sadly a few more left out, such as the future of the sport being dependent on unsustainable snow making and cost of lodging for guests and housing for staff.

In some ways all these tangible changes also reflect the world at large, not just the ski industry.

What are we, am I, willing to give up to have a just and habitable planet and society? I ask myself the question daily, and struggle to stay optimistic.

 

[ski diva]

The article fails to address a lot of the issues that are frustrating skiers this year: cut back hours at some resorts, closed or failed chairlifts, unopened terrain.

I realize there are problems with regard to low snow and labor shortages. But there are things resorts could do (and it's not limiting cell phone use on lifelines, Vail). There are also out and out lies about wait times on the EpicMix app, which says 0 wait times when the lines are crazy huge.

Like many people, I am VERY frustrated. I don't know what the answer is, but it HAS to get better.

 

[Lmk92]

I know it's not the point of the story, but Industry exec keep saying the number of skiers/snowboarders hasn't changed. How can that be true? If that kid is looking at the webcam and seeing lines he didn't see a few years ago, how can they say there aren't more people at the mountain? I can only assume they're looking at an average. And maybe including more days to get that average?

 

[sorcamc]

Epic is making it so that skiing is no longer enjoyable on weekends. When the joy becomes aggravation, its not fun. that said, Im at a small mountain that can't sustain these kinds of crowds if they don't open the lifts (and they haven't been opening them all)

 

[Christy]

The disappointing thing about the article is that the reporter accepted the spin that the resorts put on--that lower pass prices will result in diversity and inclusion. As if non-skiers are more likely to learn now that day tickets are $150+ but they can buy a season pass for $600; now that they have to leave their house super early to get a parking spot; now that they stand in extra long lines to ski.

Meanwhile the initial anecdote shows what really is going to keep newcomers away.

When Tim Pham learned to ski in the 1980s, the sport seemed simpler. He would go to quiet resorts in Northern California like Sugar Bowl, where he would show up any time of day, buy a $35 lift pass, and ski without facing lines or crowds.

“I could just decide I wanted a lesson and go up to the window and ask for one,” Mr. Pham, 50, said. “There were no reservations needed or long lines.”

He didn’t even have the right gear. “I skied in jeans and rented skis,” he said. “The boots never fit right, but we didn’t care.” Afterward, he would head to the lodge, where there was live music and domestic beer on tap for $2.

“I miss those days,” said Mr. Pham, who now lives in San Jose, Calif., and works in corporate wellness.

 

[mustski]

It sounds like a whole lot of shrugging and excuses to me. Of course the sport needs to be more inclusive, but that doesn’t mean they need to let it pack out to the point of being dangerous.

 

[Christy]

This is still bothering me. As a blonde Euro American I know I'm not the expert on what we should be doing and what works best. But it seems to me there are so many ways to promote inclusion and diversity, and maybe some of these are already being done (free lessons/free or very discounted lift tickets + transportation for certain populations like low income kids for example. And the quote from the Brotherhood representative is a great point). But lowering your pass price from $979 to $789 and saying you are doing something for diversity? PLEASE.

 

[Iwannaski]

As a NON white person, it’s stupid. What they’re doing is not inclusion, and to try to position it as such is absurd.

They’re using inclusion to justify the consequences of their own revenue optimization scheme. Get more people to the slopes to defray their fixed costs and generate more profit from high-margin products like food and beverage. If you’re waiting in line all the time, having a drink makes more sense, right?

Inclusion would be so much more.

FURTHERMORE, to call it inclusion is actually harmful TO inclusion, because I don’t see markedly more people who look like they are from different races or classes out on the slopes.

So, they’re “blaming” inclusion while not actually being more inclusive? They’re stoking resentment against people who could be new to the sport, without actually doing anything for them.

 

[SallyCat]

One thing the big resorts could do is support and sustain the small, feeder hills that really make skiing accessible and inclusive. I'm not imagining Vail taking ownership of small hills (NO!), but maybe having a funding arm that can give them an economic boost to repair old lifts and purchase rental gear and maintain their lodges and such. It seems like a win-win-win that wouldn't be terribly burdensome on the big conglomerates, at least if they're willing to break away a bit from the cult of shareholder wealth maximization and try to be a real, sustainable business.

There was a recent piece in the NYT about the little community hill in my town (here). The town was able to carry out this project because of a few wealthy and committed local donors. It's a really great little resource for beginners and families and people in the community. If the Vails of the industry could pump a bit of cash into areas like these (and they are all over New England) it would give other small ski areas a chance to thrive, and that would be good for Vail, too. It would mitigate crowding, show real commitment to local communities, and create an entry point into the sport for people that don't want to spend $600 on an Epic pass just to try out a new sport.

 

[ilovepugs]

100% agree with @SallyCat. The best resort partner supporters of Unlikely Riders (group promoting snow sports accessibility for BIPOC Vermonters) have all been independently owned/managed: Bolton Valley, Cochran’s Ski Area, Middlebury Snow Bowl, Jay Peak and Craftsbury Outdoor Center.

 

[floatingyardsale]

As a NON white person, it’s stupid. What they’re doing is not inclusion, and to try to position it as such is absurd.

They’re using inclusion to justify the consequences of their own revenue optimization scheme. Get more people to the slopes to defray their fixed costs and generate more profit from high-margin products like food and beverage. If you’re waiting in line all the time, having a drink makes more sense, right?

Inclusion would be so much more.

FURTHERMORE, to call it inclusion is actually harmful TO inclusion, because I don’t see markedly more people who look like they are from different races or classes out on the slopes.

So, they’re “blaming” inclusion while not actually being more inclusive? They’re stoking resentment against people who could be new to the sport, without actually doing anything for them.

+1. This sounds like well-crafted marketing BS. Slopes are crowded due to uh, diversity! Yes, that's it. If you don't like the crowds you don't like diversity! It has nothing to do with higher labor costs and millions in season passes.

If they wanted diversity we'd see cheap day passes so that people could *start* skiing.

 

[Lmk92]

One thing the big resorts could do is support and sustain the small, feeder hills that really make skiing accessible and inclusive. I'm not imagining Vail taking ownership of small hills (NO!), but maybe having a funding arm that can give them an economic boost to repair old lifts and purchase rental gear and maintain their lodges and such. It seems like a win-win-win that wouldn't be terribly burdensome on the big conglomerates, at least if they're willing to break away a bit from the cult of shareholder wealth maximization and try to be a real, sustainable business.

There was a recent piece in the NYT about the little community hill in my town (here). The town was able to carry out this project because of a few wealthy and committed local donors. It's a really great little resource for beginners and families and people in the community. If the Vails of the industry could pump a bit of cash into areas like these (and they are all over New England) it would give other small ski areas a chance to thrive, and that would be good for Vail, too. It would mitigate crowding, show real commitment to local communities, and create an entry point into the sport for people that don't want to spend $600 on an Epic pass just to try out a new sport.

Wow, great article. I wish my town cared more about itself and its residents. But "New England is littered with the ghosts of abandoned ski areas: According to the New England Lost Ski Areas Project, more than 600 ski areas have closed in the region."

 

[ilovepugs]

+1. This sounds like well-crafted marketing BS. Slopes are crowded due to uh, diversity! Yes, that's it. If you don't like the crowds you don't like diversity! It has nothing to do with higher labor costs and millions in season passes.

If they wanted diversity we'd see cheap day passes so that people could *start* skiing.

This sounds like blaming the disadvantaged folks rather than owning the problems of their own creation. I don’t agree it sounds like well-crafted marketing BS… just more corporate spin that actively harms diverse populations by stoking resentment of actual diversity initiatives and resentment of non-white people on the slopes.

If I wasn’t anti-Vail before (was just frustrated and sad to see the Stowe experience so degraded), I am now.

Edit - I see @Iwannaski and I are of a same mind on this. Lol.

 

[Jenny]

I couldn't get past the paywall.

 

[newboots]

I couldn't get past the paywall.

Trying to fix that. Hang on!



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/...K9a4bd9b-n6adunA&referringSource=articleShare

Maybe this works.

 

[CTskigrrl]

I couldn't get past the paywall.

If you've got fast fingers and are on mobile, clicking the article and immediately toggling on airplane mode always works for me

 

[SallyCat]

I copied and pasted it to my website. Apologies for not realizing there was a paywall.

If you're interested in seeing more about what goes on around the mountain today, click for the Ascutney Outdoors website.

 

[floatingyardsale]

This sounds like blaming the disadvantaged folks rather than owning the problems of their own creation. I don’t agree it sounds like well-crafted marketing BS… just more corporate spin that actively harms diverse populations by stoking resentment of actual diversity initiatives and resentment of non-white people on the slopes.

If I wasn’t anti-Vail before (was just frustrated and sad to see the Stowe experience so degraded), I am now.

Edit - I see @Iwannaski and I are of a same mind on this. Lol.

To be clear, I agree with both of you. The reason I said it's marketing BS/corporate spin is that's what it is. Most people don't ski, and most people who think of it think of it as a rich white sport for elites.

An article that tells people who hear about crowding at resorts that it's because so many people who have been locked out of the sport unfairly now suddenly have access due to Vail --- well, it's good media positioning and most readers aren't going to question it as they have no idea.