Vail takes over the skiing world....

[Yo Momma]

I believe the writing is on the wall for some sort of dramatic shift in the ski industry over the next 5-20 years. Demographic shift coupled with a lack of sufficient new bodies means at some point, skier visits should decline industry wide.

Right now, two types of mountains are doing well- the Vails and the Monarchs. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/15/colorado-monarch-mountain-ski-area-thriving/ Meanwhile, many 2nd tier resorts are really struggling to make real profits- the Copper Mountains and Crested Buttes.

The unanswerable question I have is whether the Vails or the Monarchs of the industry (or both) are best positioned to succeed in case of an industry crash. Most of the successful Monarch-type ski areas have no debt and can operate "lean and mean" unburdened with real estate ventures (of which value should crater if ski visits decline), debt, and infrastructure unrelated to skiing.

Has Vail's dominance of the top tier created space for a resurgence in affordable skiing? I think whether James Coleman and his Power Pass ski areas (Purgatory, Snowbowl, Pajarito, Sipapu, Hesperus) become successful or miserably fail will help answer that question.

For those unaware, Coleman has operated tiny Sipapu for over a decade, and all other resorts he has bought or leased in the past two years. Exactly none of the resorts he has purchased have been successful earners. His time at Sipapu carved out a market for the area, but whether the others will pay remains to be seen. Pajarito had no snowmaking in a climate that needs it, Purgatory suffered from Vail-mentality ownership focused on overdeveloping real estate instead of skiing, Snowbowl a tough climate among other things I don't have a good grasp on, and Hesperus has no snowmaking, an ancient lift, a small mountain at a relatively low elevation and finicky snowfall- with less than 5000 skier visits a season!

At all mountains, Coleman has slashed prices. He's sunk a ton of money into lifts and snowmaking. He's extended the seasons and has been exceptionally aggressive about opening terrain. He offers a laundry list of deals- Free room with a $45 lift ticket, Free season passes for 40, 60 and 70 year olds, days where an entire car of people ski for $50. Buy one day pass, get three free lessons. It is a fire sale to entice local skiers to ski more and new skiers to try it out. Looking at Purgatory, the guy is adored by staff and locals. Pass sales and skier visits are up.

But is it going to work? Is consolidating a bunch of resorts that were barely hanging on (and then lowering prices while increasing investment) going to be viable? What about the fact that like many smaller ski areas, Coleman's resorts are going to be (are right now) heavily affected by climate change?

It will be interesting to see, but right now it is awesome. Local word is that Coleman is wanting Hesperus to operate into April. In the last 4 seasons the resort was open no later than March 7 and closed Tuesday after President's Day 2 years. Purgatory is scheduled to remain open through April with extended operation possible, under previous ownership it closed like clockwork the first weekend in April.

If value propositions ski areas can also thrive, there may be hope for the sport. but.. IF.

Can you give us an update on Wolf Creek and the condos that Red was trying put in up there? Also is it still owned by the Pitcher family? Thanks! Lots of past controversy over this, what do you think?

 

[Monique]

Agree with @nay that it's not about the skiing. Everything else aside, the mountains are GORGEOUS. Even for people who don't hike, bike, ski, snowshoe, etc. Look at how many people you see pulled over at "scenic spots" on I-70. On Sunday, it was puking snow, and two guys from Texas on the lift with me were taking photos from the Quicksilver - ie, lowest lift - gushing about how gorgeous it was. This on a day when you couldn't see anything but snowflakes. Which won't come out in photos, anyway, unless one of those guys was a professional photographer. This wasn't the view from the top of the lift, where you can see other peaks.

I realized how spoiled I am. But in the context of this thread, it means that skiing is only one draw. And there's a reason you always hear, "I came for the winters, but stayed for the summers." Traffic is worse here in the summer than in the winter.

 

[Jeff N]

@Jeff N - your points are well taken if Vail was only focused on skiing.

You are correct that Vail's strategic plan to address climate change and demographic shift is converting ski areas into 4 season resorts.

That said, they are not currently successful. Their bottom line comes from winter, and right now summer activities stem the off-season losses. While they state their intent to create 4 season resorts, right now they are sinking incredible amounts of money into Winter in the form of terrain expansion and new lifts that don't spin in Summer.

So, it remains to be seen whether this will be a successful strategy. It could be that the investments into Summer activities are just more infrastructure that weights Vail and other major resorts down when/if something like a 30-40% contraction in skier visits happens.

 

[Monique]

What about golf?

 

[Ken_R]

Oh, yeah, I realize that ... just pointing out that if you do travel, or want to travel, it's awesome. I don't have any extra expenses at Aspen, and I've already been going to both Utah and JH at least once a year for the past 10 years, so that isn't anything extra.

Of course now I am totally spoiled and don't want to go back to Copper...

You live in Aspen? (or near?)

Honestly I guess I am wishing that the MC pass becomes a real alternative to the Epic pass. United, the other ski areas will be able to fare much better against the Vail empire.

 

[Jeff N]

Can you give us an update on Wolf Creek and the condos that Red was trying put in up there? Also is it still owned by the Pitcher family? Thanks! Lots of past controversy over this, what do you think?

Pitcher family owns the resort. I doubt they would give it up for any sum of money. I bet James Coleman made them an offer like he has apparently done with most of the Southwest. The only thing I could see changing ownership is if they pissed the FS off enough where the FS refused to issue a permit, which would have to be pretty nuclear.

The Village is probably happening. They won the land swap. A lawsuit challenging that decision was immediately filed, but it isn't clear whether it will go anywhere. Curiously, the VIllage at Wolf Creek has not updated their website in years and doesn't reflect the land swap. http://www.thevillageatwolfcreek.com/

The ski area expects the land swap to happen. Next year, they are installing the Meadows lift. The installation and alignment of the lift make zero sense without the Village. The lift install includes cutting several cleared runs under the numbered chutes and includes a bridge across the creek at the bottom- totally useless unless there are condos on that side. The cleared runs also make no sense unless you have a village and people wanting to access beginner terrain from that Village.

The result of the Meadows lift is that much of the skiers-right terrain off Alberta chair will become incredibly lame. Instead of a short steep section leading to a mellow powder playground, a short steep section will lead to cleared groomers filled with beginner skiers. Alberta will be a 15 minute lift ride for 1 minute of steeps in the Numbered Chutes. For a resort with a reputation for not having attractive advanced terrain, taking away the amazing tree skiing in most of Alberta is just stupid.

 

[Jeff N]

What about golf?

What about it? Vail and other top tier resorts are pursuing increases in Summer destination traffic, including the golf set, but to my knowledge none have turned their operations into something remotely approaching parity with winter revenue. Until something like that happens, the idea that Summer will offset a decline in winter is purely speculative.

 

[quant]

What about golf?

1) Golf helps drive summer revenues in two ways, getting revenue from golfers and increasing convention bookings. Assuming finding cheap water isn't an issue (the grass is thirsty), golf courses should make money in resort areas.
2) The summer visitors this year going to Park City should equal the number of winter visitors. This means a lot more beds filled and more revenue to MTN. There is no reason why the larger resorts can't significantly increase summer visitation to equal the winter numbers.
3) All the tourism statistics for Park City can be found here: https://res-5.cloudinary.com/simple...2016_6f0b56f7-2f27-431e-b01e-762cd29d76ad.pdf
4) Vail should be able to push Park City's share of skier days close to 50% of the entire state, if it isn't already there. The summer is more complicated, but increases in beds sold is a given as winter tourists return in the summer.
5) Summer traffic will get worse.

 

[SBrown]

You live in Aspen? (or near?)

Honestly I guess I am wishing that the MC pass becomes a real alternative to the Epic pass. United, the other ski areas will be able to fare much better against the Vail empire.

Near ... but an Aspen season pass is too pricey for me. The Aspen Classic passes, 4 and 7 days, are good deals but they only offer 30% off once you run out of days.

 

[mdf]

Near ... but an Aspen season pass is too pricey for me. The Aspen Classic passes, 4 and 7 days, are good deals but they only offer 30% off once you run out of days.

You could be a mountain host (tour guide).
Forget the exact details, but when I asked one of them the commitment required for a free pass seemed surprisingly minor.

I want everyone who has skied with susan to picture her giving tours to the tourists and see if it brings a smile to your face.

 

[nay]

What about it? Vail and other top tier resorts are pursuing increases in Summer destination traffic, including the golf set, but to my knowledge none have turned their operations into something remotely approaching parity with winter revenue. Until something like that happens, the idea that Summer will offset a decline in winter is purely speculative.

What Vail is doing represents diversification across an existing asset base. Diversification can be speculative, but it is also a risk hedge that most other North American ski businesses simply don't have. If Vail Resorts goes down in a fire sale, who exactly is surviving?

Vail sold 650,000 Epic Passes last year. At at a mix of the various passes, that's about a half billion dollars of revenue across a largely fixed asset base whether a single skier shows up or not - the lifts are running either way. Said differently, Vail is driving very high utilization across the risk of leveraged fixed assets. The summer strategy at Vail itself, assuming running one gondola isn't that expensive, increases utilization. Maybe you haven't been to Vail recently - go on any given summer day and look around at how many people are there.

Beyond this, if the skiing base, not measured as number of skiers, but rather as number of skier days, declines, the first question is: how does an already under utilized ski area survive? And when the second tier places go, where do those skiers go? Do they just stop skiing? Or do they concentrate around the maximum access model? The cheap season pass maximizes skier days, and skier days maximize on-mountain wallet share.

I'd question where Vail is doing it wrong. Skiers are not dissuaded from their resorts - their I-70 portfolio are all top 25 in skier visits globally. Local diversity, regional diversity, global diversity, asset diversity, seasonal diversity, services diversity. Everything Vail is doing is about diversifying risk. So how is Vail somehow becoming risky as compared to peers?

 

[Jeff N]

What Vail is doing represents diversification across an existing asset base.

Sigh. You made me feel compelled to go look up Vail Resort's 10K.

Our business is highly seasonal. Our mountain and lodging operations are highly seasonal in nature. In particular, revenue and profits from our mountain and most of our lodging operations are substantially lower and historically result in losses from late spring to late fall.

Vail's fiscal year ends July 31. They note:

For Fiscal 2016, 79% of total combined Mountain and Lodging segment net revenue (excluding Lodging segment revenue associated with reimbursement of payroll costs) was earned during our second and third fiscal quarters. This seasonality is partially mitigated by the sale of season passes (which for Fiscal 2016 accounted for approximately 40% of the total lift revenue) predominately occurring during the period prior to the start of the ski season as the cash from those sales is collected in advance and revenue is mostly recognized in the second and third quarters.

http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...AA4-92512CF4D0B4/2016_Proxy_and_Form_10-K.pdf

The 2nd and 3rd Fiscal Quarters run from October 31 to April 30th. Also known as ski season. It may be that the discrepancy between stating the mountain and lodging losing money from Spring to Fall and that there is 20% net revenue during the period is the fact that preseason Epic Pass sale revenue hits the books in fiscal Quarter 1- which means that the Vail portfolio only makes money when the snow falls.

The only sense that they are diversifying is that they are purchasing resorts in different geographical areas. More often than no snow anywhere is no snow somewhere and a ton of snow elsewhere. Hedge against regions, not against factors that affect the entire industry.

Until Summer revenues reach some parity with Winter revenues, Vail is just buying up more of the EXACT SAME CLASS OF ASSET and trying to add value. I think of an aging motel that decides to buy a new fancy hot tub, or maybe starts booking local bands to play the lounge Saturday nights. They used to have more investments in fair weather resorts.

It is not diversification, it is doubling down, with the hope that they can maybe sorta reinvent the their ski resorts before the music stops. And they certainly might, BUT THEY HAVEN'T.

They sold 650,000 Epic passes. What if the market shrinks and they can only sell 400,000? Or they would sell 400,000, only they cut prices so they can keep selling 650,000? They have 700 million dollars in long term debt to service (2016 10k). Many (Most?) of the successful small ski areas have none- they learned that lesson from the 1980's.

It may well be that Vail is the best positioned to benefit from a contraction of the skiing market. Stagnant industries see consolidation (see the beer industry). Getting larger is generally a strategy because the larger size affords you more economies of scale so you can deliver your product cheaper. Beer producers merge, then shut down breweries, moving beer brands to larger factories making more beer lines (so long, Rolling Rock). But Vail isn't building a cheaper product- their version of skiing is more infrastructure intensive by far than the rest of the industry- and more and more they are making those improvements on credit. Perhaps they feel they are a hairs breadth away from the knockout blow? You assume that ski areas with less visitation are under-utilized, but it may be Vail with the utilization problem in a decline- they need several magnitudes more skiers to pay for the infrastructure. Clearly Vail is being successful using size to draw more skiers, but they also clearly aren't executing the typical consolidation game plan.

Those skiers needed to debt service and maintain Vail's spare-no-expense lift systems may stop choosing to fly halfway around the world. Aside from Demographics and Climate Change, I see a 3rd wildcard-energy. In 20 years we may have fantastically high gas prices, or we may all have electric vehicles with 1000 mile ranges that cost 1/10 as much per mile to drive. It seems almost a given that the norm will be self-driving cars. Cheap energy prices and self-driving cars means I could get off work Friday night, set the car to drive to Tahoe, go to sleep, and wake up Saturday morning to ski. Seems like a pretty amazing boon to destination resorts. Or, if energy prices are the equivalent of $8.00 a gallon, maybe the local Monarch's make bank (or maybe nothing is left).

Like I said, I'm not saying Vail doesn't win in a future of 30% less skiers and climate change. But it is not at all a sure thing. Right now we've seen the flop and are waiting on the Turn and River to see if Vail's bets pay off. I see too many variables to guess, but given Vail's financial picture, I laugh at the idea that they are hedging. They. Are. All. In.

 

[nay]

I laugh at the idea that they are hedging. They. Are. All. In.

Certainly they are, but then so are Powdr and Intrawest, right? How is any ski operator half pregnant? You can go all in with your business model and hedge risks. A more solid summer revenue stream offsets things like a bad snow season. If you are just closed, then the ski season is it. The links you posted about loses in the offseason are part of the strategy point - if you can limit offseason losses, then you are loss vulnerable to demand based fluctuations during the prime winter season. Although in reality, the growth model for pass sales is the biggest hedge against seasonal losses. You sell cheaper early, people commit, and the season has a huge bookings floor while you're still trying to sell summer lift passes.

A quick Google search of MTN's debt to equity ratio shows that it is currently about .85, which is right at the five year average and somewhat lower than over the last 15 years or so. While D/E doesn't tell the entire story, under 1.0 does not suggest a highly leveraged company, especially given the fixed asset nature of the business.

Cashflow probably tells the best story. Take a look at cashflow from operations from 2012 to 2016 ($185M to $420M), free cashflow ($53M to $311M), and trends in long term debt issuance vs. debt retirement. Vail reduced long term debt by $120M in 2016 alone and spent $54M repurchasing common and preferred stock while paying out $104M in cash dividends. Annual capital expenditures are sitting around $120M a year, which at this point is a fraction of free cashflow. Tell me again how Vail's modern and extensive lift asset infrastructure is a liability that is going to drag them down vs. smaller places running on capital investments they made decades ago without necessarily even the ability to get a loan for lift replacement and no significant free cashflow to fund the expenditures internally? Oh, that's right. The billionaires will pay for it.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mtn/financials/cash-flow

Here's historical and trend data on ROA and ROE.

https://ycharts.com/companies/MTN/return_on_assets

https://ycharts.com/companies/MTN/return_on_equity

Vail's EBIDTA in 2016 was $449M. They grew gross revenues by $600M from 2012 to 2016.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/mtn/financials

I scanned a few other financial ratios to look for signs of distress. You know when you are looking at charts and somebody shows you "up and to the right"? MTNs financials sure look like they could absorb a 30% hit. That just takes them back to 2012.

 

[Jeff N]

I disagree that Vail has a solid revenue stream from Summer. At this point it doesn't even seem to be a meaningful revenue stream. It is dwarfed by preseason pass sales. Your original argument as I understand it is that Vail is shielded from a skiing decline because they are becoming a 4 season resort. Only true if they actually become one. They are clearly far away.

I agree that right now Vail is not hugely leveraged. They get 500 million in Epic Pass sales, right? 700 in debt brining in 500 million a year is not bad- unless that revenue goes away, and the value of the assets drop. Those assets can't really be moved or sold. If the ski area demand falls, the value also falls.

You mention Powdr and Intrawest. I think the companies trying to execute the Vail strategy and doing a worse job are screwed in a true decline. I see fire sales there too. Eventually if skiing declines I think lifts may start coming out or getting replaced with fixed grip lifts at places that cannot afford to replace high speed chairs that last 1/3 as long. But this discussion is about whether Vail comes out ahead and scoops up even more resorts, or it gets mortally wounded too. I believe either is possible.

Small resorts are generally paying cash for their lifts. Since 2006, Wolf Creek has bought two high speed lifts, rehabbed and reinstalled a fixed triple, and will add another fixed grip lift this Summer. All paid in cash. Monarch has replaced drives on two lifts and is closing in on installing a backside chair. They also did a huge expansion of their lodge. All in cash. They are seeing hefty returns at a price Vail can't hit. They are selling to a market that doesn't overlap with Vail. They are selling to a market that may remain even if Vail fails, as family friendly affordable ski areas are where new skiers enter the sport.

As for Vail taking a 30% haircut based on 2012, come on now. That 30% increase comes from. Park City and Whistler. They bought 30% more revenue, they didn't grow it, and now those assets need to debt service too.

 

[James]

You could be a mountain host (tour guide).
Forget the exact details, but when I asked one of them the commitment required for a free pass seemed surprisingly minor.

I want everyone who has skied with susan to picture her giving tours to the tourists and see if it brings a smile to your face.

Yeah that would be hilarious!

Tour guide Susan:
Skiing ahead, tourists behind, she's talking to the town of Aspen thousands of feet below.
"Oh gee.. yeah this is interesting. There's a couple rocks over there."
Tourist 1: "Whoah! Rocks!!
Susan: "Yeah it gets a bit bony in here but the snow is really good."
Tourist2: "Ughh..I just hit a rock!"
T3: " Me too! Feels like a core shot!"
T4: "Are we lost? We're in a minefield."
T1: "She said the snow was good this way."
Susan: "Yeah guys watch out there... Ski around the rocks, not over them."

(Pointing to a huge glare ice spot over a roller. Impossible to avoid). "Now try to stay left after that roller. It's a bit icy."

T4: "When do we get to the snow?"
T1: "She said it's over the roller."
T2 "Yeah it's 'A bit icy' over the roller.
T3 "That's what she said?"
T4 " I get the idea that 'A bit icy' to her means we're likely to see guys with ice axes and crampons climbing up."
T3 "Do they license these guides?"
T1: "Volunteeeerr...Whoah!!!..." (Going over the roller)
T4:" What happened"
T2: " He went over the roller..."
T3: " She said stay left"
T4: "There were no consequences mentioned? Was it stay left or die?"
T2: "No. I can't see her. Maybe she's at the bar already."
T3: " Ya know, this snow is pretty good here.."
T4: " Yeah in between rocks!! I'm sure that's what they said on the Titanic! 'This is such a nice ship, such a beautiful night.' Then Leo is in the icy water clinging to a pallet with Kate on top freezing to death."
T3: "Well Kate came out ok..."
T4: "And Leo died!!"
"Ok, stay left...left... this snow better be good..."
Susan: ( 50 yards down) " Hey guys! It's good here."
T4: "I have no idea what that means. Two feet of powder but with a mandatory cliff?"
Susan: "Just a little drop here. Pay attention..."
T2: "Oh no...She said pay attention. She didn't say that with the rocks."
T3: "Yeah she did..."
T4 "After we hit them!"
T2: " I know. This is a before warning. That must be bad."
T3: "Hey where's T1?"
T2: "Last I saw he went over the roller."
T4: " Onto the ice!!"
T3 " Isn't he ahead?"
T2: "No"
T4: "I did hear something in the trees we went past."
T2: "Well she's going back to look if he's missing! ' Little bit of ice' ?? They could hold Olympic ice climbing on that patch."
T3: " Hey! The snow is good over here!.."

 

[Philpug]

Yeah that would be hilarious!

Tour guide Susan:
Skiing ahead, tourists behind, she's talking to the town of Aspen thousands of feet below.
"Oh gee.. yeah this is interesting. There's a couple rocks over there."
Tourist 1: "Whoah! Rocks!!
Susan: "Yeah it gets a bit bony in here but the snow is really good."
Tourist2: "Ughh..I just hit a rock!"
T3: " Me too! Feels like a core shot!"
T4: "Are we lost? We're in a minefield."
T1: "She said the snow was good this way."
Susan: "Yeah guys watch out there... Ski around the rocks, not over them."

(Pointing to a huge glare ice spot over a roller. Impossible to avoid). "Now try to stay left after that roller. It's a bit icy."

T4: "When do we get to the snow?"
T1: "She said it's over the roller."
T2 "Yeah it's 'A bit icy' over the roller.
T3 "That's what she said?"
T4 " I get the idea that 'A bit icy' to her means we're likely to see guys with ice axes and crampons climbing up."
T3 "Do they license these guides?"
T1: "Volunteeeerr...Whoah!!!..." (Going over the roller)
T4:" What happened"
T2: " He went over the roller..."
T3: " She said stay left"
T4: "There were no consequences mentioned? Was it stay left or die?"
T2: "No. I can't see her. Maybe she's at the bar already."
T3: " Ya know, this snow is pretty good here.."
T4: " Yeah in between rocks!! I'm sure that's what they said on the Titanic! 'This is such a nice ship, such a beautiful night.' Then Leo is in the icy water clinging to a pallet with Kate on top freezing to death."
T3: "Well Kate came out ok..."
T4: "And Leo died!!"
"Ok, stay left...left... this snow better be good..."
Susan: ( 50 yards down) " Hey guys! It's good here."
T4: "I have no idea what that means. Two feet of powder but with a mandatory cliff?"
Susan: "Just a little drop here. Pay attention..."
T2: "Oh no...She said pay attention. She didn't say that with the rocks."
T3: "Yeah she did..."
T4 "After we hit them!"
T2: " I know. This is a before warning. That must be bad."
T3: "Hey where's T1?"
T2: "Last I saw he went over the roller."
T4: " Onto the ice!!"
T3 " Isn't he ahead?"
T2: "No"
T4: "I did hear something in the trees we went past."
T2: "Well she's going back to look if he's missing! ' Little bit of ice' ?? They could hold Olympic ice climbing on that patch."
T3: " Hey! The snow is good over here!.."

You've skied with her.

 

[Jim Kenney]

Last March 2016 I skied two days at Park City, followed immediately by two days at Deer Valley. First time ever at Deer Valley. What surprised me about Deer Valley was that in my humble opinion as a tourist it did not suffer at all in the shadow of PC. Both ski areas were teeming with spring vacationers. As some of you know, I am from the peanut butter and jelly for lunch crowd and love anti-resorts as much as anybody. But my only conclusion from those four days is that there is a healthy market for the highest level of luxury skiing whether it is being offered by Vail or someone else.

 

[coskigirl]

Yeah that would be hilarious!

Tour guide Susan:
Skiing ahead, tourists behind, she's talking to the town of Aspen thousands of feet below.
"Oh gee.. yeah this is interesting. There's a couple rocks over there."
Tourist 1: "Whoah! Rocks!!
Susan: "Yeah it gets a bit bony in here but the snow is really good."
Tourist2: "Ughh..I just hit a rock!"
T3: " Me too! Feels like a core shot!"
T4: "Are we lost? We're in a minefield."
T1: "She said the snow was good this way."
Susan: "Yeah guys watch out there... Ski around the rocks, not over them."

(Pointing to a huge glare ice spot over a roller. Impossible to avoid). "Now try to stay left after that roller. It's a bit icy."

T4: "When do we get to the snow?"
T1: "She said it's over the roller."
T2 "Yeah it's 'A bit icy' over the roller.
T3 "That's what she said?"
T4 " I get the idea that 'A bit icy' to her means we're likely to see guys with ice axes and crampons climbing up."
T3 "Do they license these guides?"
T1: "Volunteeeerr...Whoah!!!..." (Going over the roller)
T4:" What happened"
T2: " He went over the roller..."
T3: " She said stay left"
T4: "There were no consequences mentioned? Was it stay left or die?"
T2: "No. I can't see her. Maybe she's at the bar already."
T3: " Ya know, this snow is pretty good here.."
T4: " Yeah in between rocks!! I'm sure that's what they said on the Titanic! 'This is such a nice ship, such a beautiful night.' Then Leo is in the icy water clinging to a pallet with Kate on top freezing to death."
T3: "Well Kate came out ok..."
T4: "And Leo died!!"
"Ok, stay left...left... this snow better be good..."
Susan: ( 50 yards down) " Hey guys! It's good here."
T4: "I have no idea what that means. Two feet of powder but with a mandatory cliff?"
Susan: "Just a little drop here. Pay attention..."
T2: "Oh no...She said pay attention. She didn't say that with the rocks."
T3: "Yeah she did..."
T4 "After we hit them!"
T2: " I know. This is a before warning. That must be bad."
T3: "Hey where's T1?"
T2: "Last I saw he went over the roller."
T4: " Onto the ice!!"
T3 " Isn't he ahead?"
T2: "No"
T4: "I did hear something in the trees we went past."
T2: "Well she's going back to look if he's missing! ' Little bit of ice' ?? They could hold Olympic ice climbing on that patch."
T3: " Hey! The snow is good over here!.."

You've skied with her.

The key is to listen to her vocal sounds as she skis, they'll say more than any words.

 

[SBrown]

Yeah that would be hilarious!

Tour guide Susan:
Skiing ahead, tourists behind, she's talking to the town of Aspen thousands of feet below.
"Oh gee.. yeah this is interesting. There's a couple rocks over there."
Tourist 1: "Whoah! Rocks!!
Susan: "Yeah it gets a bit bony in here but the snow is really good."
Tourist2: "Ughh..I just hit a rock!"
T3: " Me too! Feels like a core shot!"
T4: "Are we lost? We're in a minefield."
T1: "She said the snow was good this way."
Susan: "Yeah guys watch out there... Ski around the rocks, not over them."

(Pointing to a huge glare ice spot over a roller. Impossible to avoid). "Now try to stay left after that roller. It's a bit icy."

T4: "When do we get to the snow?"
T1: "She said it's over the roller."
T2 "Yeah it's 'A bit icy' over the roller.
T3 "That's what she said?"
T4 " I get the idea that 'A bit icy' to her means we're likely to see guys with ice axes and crampons climbing up."
T3 "Do they license these guides?"
T1: "Volunteeeerr...Whoah!!!..." (Going over the roller)
T4:" What happened"
T2: " He went over the roller..."
T3: " She said stay left"
T4: "There were no consequences mentioned? Was it stay left or die?"
T2: "No. I can't see her. Maybe she's at the bar already."
T3: " Ya know, this snow is pretty good here.."
T4: " Yeah in between rocks!! I'm sure that's what they said on the Titanic! 'This is such a nice ship, such a beautiful night.' Then Leo is in the icy water clinging to a pallet with Kate on top freezing to death."
T3: "Well Kate came out ok..."
T4: "And Leo died!!"
"Ok, stay left...left... this snow better be good..."
Susan: ( 50 yards down) " Hey guys! It's good here."
T4: "I have no idea what that means. Two feet of powder but with a mandatory cliff?"
Susan: "Just a little drop here. Pay attention..."
T2: "Oh no...She said pay attention. She didn't say that with the rocks."
T3: "Yeah she did..."
T4 "After we hit them!"
T2: " I know. This is a before warning. That must be bad."
T3: "Hey where's T1?"
T2: "Last I saw he went over the roller."
T4: " Onto the ice!!"
T3 " Isn't he ahead?"
T2: "No"
T4: "I did hear something in the trees we went past."
T2: "Well she's going back to look if he's missing! ' Little bit of ice' ?? They could hold Olympic ice climbing on that patch."
T3: " Hey! The snow is good over here!.."

Yeah, so what's your point?



(I do feel compelled to add that although I was skiing with @SkiNurse when she had her mishap in a pile of rocks, she was not in fact following me at that time....)

 

[SkiNurse]

Yeah, so what's your point?



(I do feel compelled to add that although I was skiing with @SkiNurse when she had her mishap in a pile of rocks, she was not in fact following me at that time....)

Key words: "At that time".