Whiteface Conditions (2015 - 2016)

They are only ever going to cover the trails with they're magic amount that they deem necessary for a base. If you get a one time infrastrucure infusion to build the necessary plant how much more can it cost to operate. If it takes 70 days to cover the entire mountain and with the new plant it only takes 50 I don't see the operating budget going up 1 for 1. 150 billion dollar budget. What the hell is 10 million.

Gore burns up about 13M KWH in a season and spends about $1M for it. Your guess is pretty close as most of the $1M will be snowmaking. These numbers from the article on Gore installing solar. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-solar-energy-power-belleayre-gore-and-whiteface-ski-centers

Harvey wrote

If Hunter is operating on 25-30 million and the same ratio is true (granted some big IFs) then they might spend 6 or 7m on snowmaking?  

^^No way they spend $7 mil.  My guess is they spend the same $1 mil and blow the same total amount of snow as Gore, but because Hunter has half the acreage they can bury their trails twice as deep and/or resurface twice as frequently.  And because their plant is twice the size of Gore's they can cover their trails 4 times faster.  

And that's why Hunter throws off a $6 mil profit.

Coach Z wrote

No one is going to argue against having a bigger snowmaking plant but unless we have a bigger budget to blow with it what good does that do?

First, Gore and WF can both handle more skier visits.  Blow more snow, get more terrain open earlier and provide better conditions and skier visits will go up.  Mike Pratt put a chart into the last 2 annual reports demonstrating the link between increased lift/days and increased skier visits.  Same thing goes for increased snowmaking.

Second, if you double the snowmaking fire power it doesn't necessarily mean you double the snowmaking budget, or even increase it at all.  Gore's and WF's snowmaking shortcomings aren't so much in the gross amount of snow that can be made as in the speed at which it can be made.  It takes Gore 15-ish days to cover their trails in one foot of man made snow.  Hunter can do theirs in 4.  Most major areas are in the 7-10 day range.  More capacity means you can open more trails sooner and resurface more quickly, even if you don't blow more total snow or spend more money.

I agree both of jeffs points here. More overall capacity might just mean the budget gets spent very quickly on an early opening, not necessarily that the budget has to increase. Side point: I think Jeff must be a really intelligent guy cause I keep agreeing with him

There also is a people impact of a bigger plant covering trails quicker

Those snow makers will get laid off sooner and it will be hard to keep the good ones who may leave for other jobs.  If we blow thru the budget normally by Presidents day we would now be done by MLK with no budget to cover for a rain event.  If you have more plant the only sensible thing is to have a much bigger budget.  You don't invest in capital equipment to have it sit idle.

Would I like more snow - yes
does it make economic sense to do so - probably not

Brownski wrote

More overall capacity might just mean the budget gets spent very quickly on an early opening, not necessarily that the budget has to increase.

Front loading your budget in the season increases the probability of going over budget since the earlier you open / cover the trails the higher chance you will get hit by a thaw and/or rain event. Or multiple thaw / rain events.

I would bet that if you front load your budget into the early part of the season you will almost always over run, except in a mythical ideal year.

IMO being against snowmaking upgrades because you think it would be mismanaged is misguided.

If more skier visits and better profitability is the long term goal, being able to cover or resurface the mountain in half the time has to be a good thing.   With more terrain open in the holiday periods, more will come, especially at Christmas. Over time you'd build a reputation for having more terrain and that would drive growth too.

The jobs argument doesn't stack up either. Should we move freight across country with horse and wagon because it is more labor intensive?

I don't disagree with any of this. My experience was that when snowmaking got cut back, they moved me over to operations and I spent 1/2 my time on phones and radios in the dispatch office and 1/2 my time helping out with the lift dept. I guess managment liked me cause they kept me going well into April. Getting good people to come back year after year is difficult. I also realize that increased investment in the plant always goes hand in hand with a bigger budget overall; just saying its not necessarily so. Also not saying it makes sense for whiteface to do it, just sharing my thoughts.

UMMM that's exactly what they are doing with the look out lift.  You are taking the counter side just to try and debate.  If they could get the funding to double there capacity there is only upside.  How many people come to LP over Christmas and New Years for the holiday. For Most of them it a one and done deal. Now imagine if they have the three main lifts open for that same holiday. There experience would be different and repeat business would start to increase...and anyone in sales know the key is the repeat business.  I hear all the time that if Christmas/New years is a bust it a hard hole to dig out of.   70 % of the time it seems to be a scramble.   We cant control the weather but we can control what we do when it is below 32.  MORE FIRE POWER

Don't they all Front load the budget anyways?  

Not that I'm criticizing WF, because I'm pretty happy with what we've got.  Even in a terrible year they've had pretty good conditions, all things considered.  This is a year I'm not getting great value out of my season pass, as circumstances and conditions have somewhat limited my days on hill.  Was actually thinking....maybe no pass next year. As a pass holder I was thrilled to see them blowing snow last week, showing a real commitment.  Might have kept me on the season pass bandwagon.  Stick that in your analysis pipe and smoke it.  How much pass holder revenue might that couple days of March blowing helped them keep next year?  Kudos!

That said.....I can see the argument/progression/gamble.  Increased capacity=more terrain open early=more Christmas $$$=more profitability=higher snowmaking budgets=ability to keep snow makers longer even with the early push.

Chicken and the egg thing with the snowmaking and skier visits.

Honestly, and it won't happen, but NOW is ther ideal time to pounce and put the extra capacity in place for next year.  If folks in VT are really talking about WF having better conditions this year, capitalize on that and entice them over early next year.  Momentum is crazy hard to generate...

tjf1967 wrote

Don't they all Front load the budget anyways?

That seems like a safe assumption. I was just responding to the statements that if WF added capacity it might not increase their snow making budget, but instead they might just spend it sooner.

You'd have a much higher chance of over running your budget if you spent 90% in December vs if you spent 50% in December.

But, as was mentioned earlier, it's not a given that the Summit opens for Christmas and if it doesn't, that week won't be profitable.  If Christmas week is profitable every year, it's more money to raise the snowmaking budget.  

WF has 30 acre feet per day and 300 acres.  Hunter has 60 acre feet per day and 240 acres.  If WF goes to 60, they'll always get all lifts open for Christmas (except this year).

Hey Sno, How much do you guess it would cost to double our snow making capacity?   Do we have enough water to support such and upgrade?  

Coach Z wrote

Would I like more snow - yes
does it make economic sense to do so - probably not

Keep in mind that doubling Gore's and WF's snowmaking capacity would merely put them on par with their competition.  If you want to keep skiers coming to the Adirondacks, it's a necessity.  

Remember the Freestyle World Cup event that was cancelled in January?  WF couldn't make enough snow in time. Here's what Ted Blazer had to say:

“ORDA’s goal is to always provide the best venue and conditions possible for any and all events. Given the recent weather challenges, ORDA felt that there just was not enough time to prepare Whiteface Mountain and the Olympic Jumping Complex to accommodate this World Cup. We look forward to hosting the best freestyle athletes in the world in the future.”

The event was held at Deer Valley instead.  I wonder what the economic impact of losing that event was.

tjf1967 wrote

Hey Sno, How much do you guess it would cost to double our snow making capacity?   Do we have enough water to support such and upgrade?

Can they draw any water from the river?  What about expanding holding capacity for water (snowmaking reservoirs).  Mount Snow is currently building a new reservoir, so maybe Whiteface needs it.  

They also need more pumping capacity.  With more low e guns, less air is needed.

If 5 million (same as new high speed Quad) were spent on upgrading snowmaking, how much effect would if have?  That's probably the more important question.

 As you guys discuss the Hypotheticals,  the skiing on WF presently is off the charts!  thanks to the awesome snowmaking efforts which overcame significant negative weather patterns.  

I'll send you a nice shot of the awesome deep manMade base tomorrow morning  

snoloco wrote

Can they draw any water from the river?  What about expanding holding capacity for water (snowmaking reservoirs).  Mount Snow is currently building a new reservoir, so maybe Whiteface needs it.  

They also need more pumping capacity.  With more low e guns, less air is needed.

If 5 million (same as new high speed Quad) were spent on upgrading snowmaking, how much effect would if have?  That's probably the more important question.

They already draw all snowmaking water from the river.  I believe they are permitted for significantly more than what is currently being drawn.

A reservoir is essentially out of the question. This was looked at some years ago, but there simply isn't enough flat land available at the base of the mountain.  Besides, excavation is extremely expensive.  Damming the river is out of the question.

snoloco wrote

If 5 million (same as new high speed Quad) were spent on upgrading snowmaking, how much effect would if have?  That's probably the more important question.

I would think a $5 mil investment would be sufficient to double the snowmaking capacity for both mountains.  

ScottyJack wrote

 As you guys discuss the Hypotheticals,  the skiing on WF presently is off the charts!  

Please write to my boss.  On second thought, never mind.