Resort (Mis)Management - Your Suggestions

[thursday 1]

You had to book the English instructors in advance. A day or even 2 in advance.

[HelperElfMissy 42]

Originally Posted By: dyna8800

... which we instructors call "mileage"....

[Oyuki kigan 0]

Originally Posted By: dyna8800

Quite frankly, I do not think that the Japanese ski/snowboard schools would have been able to handle the foreigners.

Let's see...start out the lesson with some stretching, calisthenics, then highly rigid instruction, lots of drills and not a lot of free skiing/riding which we instructors call "mileage".

For rental, are you saying foreigner sizes or ??? What was the opportunity there?

yes, we foreigners tend to quite spoiled and unreasonable, expecting all kind of special treatment such as season passes, meetings that don't run past hour paid hours, and actually skiing/snowboarding for fun, rather than straight carving practice.

[Mike Pow 52]

Originally Posted By: dyna8800

Quite frankly, I do not think that the Japanese ski/snowboard schools would have been able to handle the foreigners.

Let's see...start out the lesson with some stretching, calisthenics, then highly rigid instruction, lots of drills and not a lot of free skiing/riding which we instructors call "mileage".

For rental, are you saying foreigner sizes or ??? What was the opportunity there?

And that is why the non-japanese schools are raking in the money.

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

Originally Posted By: SKI

Extending a ski lift might sound 'simple' in theory, but is it in practice?

How about laying down one of those chibikko gelaende conveyor belts leading to the problem lift? Should a lot cheaper than moving the chair lift station.

[s3phis 0]

Originally Posted By: Metabo Oyaji

Originally Posted By: SKI

Extending a ski lift might sound 'simple' in theory, but is it in practice?

How about laying down one of those chibikko gelaende conveyor belts leading to the problem lift? Should a lot cheaper than moving the chair lift station.

Both are pretty expensive. Largely because you're building infrastructure in an area prone to heaps of snow. If you're looking at lifts, you need to firstly remove the first station, build a new foundation and then move the station while replacing the entire cable and probably add more chairs.

The escalator itself is also difficult due to the foundation work. The magic carpet for kids is usually a temporary structure and it can afford to be. If you're going for something with high traffic (particularly with adults), you need something more permanent. That requires you to raise it above ground level so that it doesn't get submerged in snow etc. That itself wouldn't be cheap.

By my reckoning, if a ski resort was to re-organise its lift infrastructure, you're going to see a pretty big price hike in lift prices. The question is: how much are people willing to dish out for the convenience? It's technically a simple operation... but it's pricey as hell. If it's going to take more than 5 years to recoup the costs, then it's probably too risky in the current environment.

[Jynxx 4]

That's how I see it, too Ryoma.

 

In hind sight, they could have done this, done that.

By your description of the boom days, No infrastructure improvement would have eliminated the problem of capacity. Too many people at one resort, hence I understand now why so many new ones opened up.

Now people are gone! Says a lot about people and trends I reckon.

[Metabo Oyaji 71]

Originally Posted By: Ryoma

The escalator itself is also difficult due to the foundation work. The magic carpet for kids is usually a temporary structure and it can afford to be. If you're going for something with high traffic (particularly with adults), you need something more permanent. That requires you to raise it above ground level so that it doesn't get submerged in snow etc. That itself wouldn't be cheap.

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Not as easy or cheap as I had hoped.

Quote:

The question is: how much are people willing to dish out for the convenience?

Put that way, I guess I'd rather skate a little than pay more. But I'm a skier.

[s3phis 0]

Yeah, they built infrastructure without really considering the future. So now the running costs are outweighing the number of people using the lifts. To put it bluntly, the Japanese are pretty bad at thinking ahead despite their own philosophies and ideals. They should have planned for a large resort from the beginning and then split the development into phases so that, should things go bad, they wouldn't have to complete development while having a fully functional resort. To break it down, it was like:

- Okay, we're building a new lift from here to here and clearing these trees.

- Let's clear these trees too!

- Mmm, wouldn't it be nice to have another lift from here to here?

- Oh this might be a nice place to ski... clear these trees!

- Damn, we can't reach there that well... let's build another lift!

 

As Nozawa's what I'm most familiar with, I'll use it as an example...

Most of us here are in agreement that the Hikage field should never have been the base. In order to make Hikage functional, we need the huge escalator, heaps of lifts, the gondola etc... if we had the home base at Nagasaka, we could have cut the infrastructure down and saved heaps... but it's a bit too late for that now.

[tripler 0]

I find with some places the problem is the direction they cut the runs in just isn't steep enough. Like they're too much across the mountain, not enough down it. Motorway-style green runs are all very well, but also have some narrow ones going straight down by the most direct route possible.

[Jynxx 4]

Now, that is a classic case, and very insightful description.

From my experience as an interpreter having a peek into the workings and mindsets of Japanese business (mostly big corporate) and politicians, this lack of forward thinking and planning into the future is generally unacceptable. Unless one is looking for short term profit, quick fix to get out of a situation, that indicates and openly advertise what that company is about - to potential business partners and customers. However, in that area of real estate development, town planning seems to lack the foresight. It always seems like about "rebates, kick-backs" "political donations" contracts granted to favours, relatives and clans. There are local politicians involved in that area.

In a good way, it shows local taste, reflects the community, etc. But it's a damn shame they didn't learn from the oil crisis in the '70s and plan the restructure since then.

But then when you think about it, real estate is always about short term quick profit isn't it?

Quick fix, add value, sell and repeat the process.

[ILoveZao 8]

So much is also going to depend on the management at a particular resort.

 

Look at for example Prince. They run the Kagura resort in Niigata and they are quite relaxed in the way they let people "off course". Big contrast with some other Prince resorts I can think of. The reason? Perhaps simply because the guy in charge there likes to go himself.

 

Not sure if that is 100% true, but I have heard it from a few people I trust on such matters.

[s3phis 0]

Originally Posted By: ILoveZao

So much is also going to depend on the management at a particular resort.

 

Look at for example Prince. They run the Kagura resort in Niigata and they are quite relaxed in the way they let people "off course". Big contrast with some other Prince resorts I can think of. The reason? Perhaps simply because the guy in charge there likes to go himself.

 

Not sure if that is 100% true, but I have heard it from a few people I trust on such matters.

 

It's not just that; some places are more prone to avalanches than others. The places that are strict about back country are usually because there are certain areas that can be very dangerous at different times of the year. The largest reason why back country is usually banned is because there's no real avalanche prevention and there's not much experience in rescue either. It's probably safe to assume that most of the ski resorts' management do go off-piste but the difference is, they've lived there their whole lives so they know where not to go and what to specifically look out for.

 

For example, there are a number of resorts where there are heaps of hidden crevices off piste. If you go out without this knowledge, it can quite dangerous. It's not that people are wanting to bully others about going off course; there's usually a legitimate reason. A resort can't just go "enh, their fault for going off the beaten track; we won't be rescuing them".

[tripler 0]

Originally Posted By: Ryoma

The places that are strict about back country are usually because there are certain areas that can be very dangerous at different times of the year.

That may be true sometimes but I bet a lot of the time it's pretty arbitrary. Compare Happo and Goryu/47, for example. For inbound off-piste Happo is quite relaxed, while Goryu/47 is very strict. But those mountains are next to each other, they could be joined into one big resort. Terrain is identical, just different attitudes.

6 kiwis went BC at Happo a few years back and didn't get found till the snow melted in spring. Don't know if there was a rescue effort when they went missing, but I wouldn't blame anyone if there wasn't because it must be very hard to find people if they're buried you've got no idea where.

[dyna8800 3]

Originally Posted By: MikePow

And that is why the non-japanese schools are raking in the money.

I would say that the foreign schools are raking in the money from group lessons to kids, rather than adults...

[Mike Pow 52]

Can only speak from my experiences, but there are as many adults as children taking ski lessons in Hirafu. And the adults take more private lessons.

[Go Native 70]

Originally Posted By: Ryoma

Originally Posted By: ILoveZao

So much is also going to depend on the management at a particular resort.

Look at for example Prince. They run the Kagura resort in Niigata and they are quite relaxed in the way they let people "off course". Big contrast with some other Prince resorts I can think of. The reason? Perhaps simply because the guy in charge there likes to go himself.

Not sure if that is 100% true, but I have heard it from a few people I trust on such matters.

It's not just that; some places are more prone to avalanches than others. The places that are strict about back country are usually because there are certain areas that can be very dangerous at different times of the year. The largest reason why back country is usually banned is because there's no real avalanche prevention and there's not much experience in rescue either. It's probably safe to assume that most of the ski resorts' management do go off-piste but the difference is, they've lived there their whole lives so they know where not to go and what to specifically look out for.

For example, there are a number of resorts where there are heaps of hidden crevices off piste. If you go out without this knowledge, it can quite dangerous. It's not that people are wanting to bully others about going off course; there's usually a legitimate reason. A resort can't just go "enh, their fault for going off the beaten track; we won't be rescuing them".

Many other resorts around the world have dangerous off-piste areas as well but the resorts manage avi danger in these areas. Many parts out the gates of Niseko also get big crevices but this doesn't stop them being open. More Japanese resorts need to realise people want to ski off-piste and they need to manage areas beyond the piste to get them open. If they don't know how get someone from OS to come and consult for a season or two. Most US, Canadian and European resorts have very active avi control programs to help allow off-piste riding. I can't quite understand why the concept of this is almost unknown in Japan...

[brit-gob 9]

Quote:

More Japanese resorts need to realise people want to ski off-piste and they need to manage areas beyond the piste to get them open.

I think many do realise that some people want to ski off-piste.
But they decide that the cost involved is not worth it.

Not somewhere like Niseko or the big major names, but lots of smaller places.

[s3phis 0]

Originally Posted By: brit-gob

Quote:

More Japanese resorts need to realise people want to ski off-piste and they need to manage areas beyond the piste to get them open.

I think many do realise that some people want to ski off-piste.
But they decide that the cost involved is not worth it.

Not somewhere like Niseko or the big major names, but lots of smaller places.

Basically; if there was going to be enough money to make a profit out of it, then they would do it. However, there needs to be a much much bigger demand. A dozen people every week wanting to go off-piste isn't really enough for most ski resorts.

[Go Native 70]

When I'm skiing off the peak at Niseko still the majority of people up there are Japanese. It's hard for me to buy the argument that Japanese people aren't into skiing the off-piste. Open it up and they will come.

[JA2340 16]

Originally Posted By: dyna8800

Originally Posted By: Mamabear

I reckon they need a high speed quad or a gondola running alongside the family (our thereabouts) - there is a huge amount of people trying to start their day right there, and only likely to increase.

Leave the family pair for those actually riding the family run, and get the masses up to somewhere near the top of the Ace Quad in quick smart fashion. Would REALLY speed things up!

Be careful of what you wish for.

In the bubble era, they put in many lifts right next to the existing lifts. While that solved the "problem" of standing in line, it resulted in some very crowded slopes.

But, if the "new" lift went well above the existing Family lift - eg to 100m or higher - the result would be more people at higher altitude = fewer at lower altitude. The higher they deposit people, the more options the people have further down the mountain.

[muikabochi 208]

I can't compare resorts I know with Niseko because I haven't been. But when i ski at places like Ishiuchi, Maiko, etc... I don't really see many places that could be opened up even if they wanted to. Perhaps I'm just not looking too good.

[quattro 1]

Do the resorts need to be responsible for what goes on off piste. I know of many resorts that have signs up "leaving resort property ski at you own risk".

 

At that point it should be up to me if I want to ski their or not.

[SKI 15]

Even with the signs up, they get dragged into it.

They can't simply say, sod it. As far as I understand.

Perhaps Ryoma is the best placed to explain that.

[tripler 0]

I'm a bit unclear what "opening up" the backcountry means in Japan. At Happo and Goyru 47, for example, BC is totally allowed and lots of people do it. But the resort doesn't do any avi control there or anything else to make it safer or more convenient. Yet noone would say the Hakuba backcountry is closed. So what does opening it up mean if the resort doesn't do anything?