NASTAR At Whiteface
- Thread starter Face4Me
- Start date
highpeaksdrifter
New member
This is on the website:
NASTAR at Whiteface is on Lower Valley. You can't miss us we're right under the Face lift. Our hours of operation are 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekends and holiday periods.
2009-2010 Adult NASTAR Rates:
$5 for one run
$7 for two runs
$10 All Day
2009-2010 Juniors 12 and under NASTAR Rates:
$3 for one run
$5 for two runs
$8 All Day
NASTAR at Whiteface is on Lower Valley. You can't miss us we're right under the Face lift. Our hours of operation are 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. weekends and holiday periods.
2009-2010 Adult NASTAR Rates:
$5 for one run
$7 for two runs
$10 All Day
2009-2010 Juniors 12 and under NASTAR Rates:
$3 for one run
$5 for two runs
$8 All Day
Snowballs said:
Well, on a similar, but unrelated note, Whiteface had the best schwaggg by far at this weekend's Ski 'n Snowboard Expo.
Smuggs, and Kmart were a surprising no show, as was Ski Market, and many of the other regulars.
Not exactly a surprise, but still a sad commentary on the current state of affairs.
Regardless, I'm luvin' my new Whiteface/Lake Placid, "no thank you to paper, or plastic" grocery bag.
nyspnypd
New member
whipple said:Yes, NASTAR is gone from Whiteface, at least for this season.
Three reasons were sited:
1. budget
2. 3 week closure would be necessary due to World Cup and NORAM SkierX
3. It was deemed that more space was needed for tower 10 hill.
um if you didn't see one post before yours there still will be NASTAR.
Face4Me
New member
Not sure if it will help, but there's an on-line petition to try to save NASTAR at the following URL:whipple said:Yes, NASTAR is gone from Whiteface, at least for this season.
Three reasons were sited:
1. budget
2. 3 week closure would be necessary due to World Cup and NORAM SkierX
3. It was deemed that more space was needed for tower 10 hill.
http://new.ipetitions.com/petition/savewfnastar/
highpeaksdrifter
New member
nyspnypd said:whipple said:Yes, NASTAR is gone from Whiteface, at least for this season.
Three reasons were sited:
1. budget
2. 3 week closure would be necessary due to World Cup and NORAM SkierX
3. It was deemed that more space was needed for tower 10 hill.
um if you didn't see one post before yours there still will be NASTAR.
I just copied it from the website. Whipple would know the lastest about NASTAR at WF for sure.
It's been so popular at WF that this really catches me by suprise.
Denison
New member
nyspnypd said:
well, there is no Whiteface in official "Where to Race (2009/10 Season)" list:
http://www.nastar.com/index.jsp?pagename=wheretorace#NY
so, I assume there will be no Nastar at WF. There is one at Gore though
I heard that whiteface management let the employees that staff Nastar know that they will not be running Nastar
the website is not update yet on this
They site the budget as a cause but at the same time they are expanding the park to include Broadway which will be closed to regular traffic. next year they want to also continue the park on to mid valley below the mid station to danny's brigde. What's next a park on mt run or skyward?
it costs at least 10 times more to run and maintain a park compared to a regular slope so spending more on parks and cutting Nastar seems ill advised
if you want to save Nastar please go and sign the petition and write a letter to Bruce to let him know your opinion
http://new.ipetitions.com/petition/savewfnastar/
Could not have said it better myself Denison. Petition signed and commented. Very disappointed in the continued reduced support of racers at Whiteface.
Know many kids, now competing in USSA programs, who "got the bug" from NASTAR. What message does this send that the funds now support growth of parks, rather than a discipline already receiving minimal TV time and national coverage less and less each season.
Know many kids, now competing in USSA programs, who "got the bug" from NASTAR. What message does this send that the funds now support growth of parks, rather than a discipline already receiving minimal TV time and national coverage less and less each season.
highpeaksdrifter
New member
I prefer to wait and see before I pass judgment. Changes in the way things are done in any business seldom turn out as good or bad as people perceive before they happen.
Park is a growing segment of the ski/ride population. If WF doesn’t accommodate them then they’ll go somewhere else.
Park is a growing segment of the ski/ride population. If WF doesn’t accommodate them then they’ll go somewhere else.
financial analysis
Here is an idea if they need more space on tower 10 hill lets put Nastar on Broadway instead of a terrian park - it will be less expensive than having to blow extra snow for the features in the park.
Here is a little simple financial anaysis of the terrian park. I've heard that the park budget was north of $500,000 - to cover the extra snow, extra grooming time building the features, staff, liability for injuries, higher insurance etc. Let's say that will the large addition of broadway the park budget is $600k. At $74 a day for lift tickets that means you have to sell over 8100 more lift tickets just to break even on cash flow.
the proper way to do this would be to really look at the extra profit that the park brings in. Since we don't know WF's margin lets just say its 25%. In that case WF would have to sell over 24,000 more lift tickets to justify the terriain park. I don't the park supports any where near that. On a weekend its the same 25-50 kids that use the thing all day long and most of them have a season's pass.
If WF got rid of the park it would not hurt the tourist business in Placid one bit. Park rats are not really the demographic that LP is looking for
Conversely - nastar is cheap to operate - just a few staff on snow that is already blown. Since their is less traffic on Nastar is does not need as much snow as a regular trail. It brings in extra money on top of a lift ticket. Both locals and tourists use and love it. This is a no brainer financial decision - keep Nastar and dump the parks.
Here is an idea if they need more space on tower 10 hill lets put Nastar on Broadway instead of a terrian park - it will be less expensive than having to blow extra snow for the features in the park.
Here is a little simple financial anaysis of the terrian park. I've heard that the park budget was north of $500,000 - to cover the extra snow, extra grooming time building the features, staff, liability for injuries, higher insurance etc. Let's say that will the large addition of broadway the park budget is $600k. At $74 a day for lift tickets that means you have to sell over 8100 more lift tickets just to break even on cash flow.
the proper way to do this would be to really look at the extra profit that the park brings in. Since we don't know WF's margin lets just say its 25%. In that case WF would have to sell over 24,000 more lift tickets to justify the terriain park. I don't the park supports any where near that. On a weekend its the same 25-50 kids that use the thing all day long and most of them have a season's pass.
If WF got rid of the park it would not hurt the tourist business in Placid one bit. Park rats are not really the demographic that LP is looking for
Conversely - nastar is cheap to operate - just a few staff on snow that is already blown. Since their is less traffic on Nastar is does not need as much snow as a regular trail. It brings in extra money on top of a lift ticket. Both locals and tourists use and love it. This is a no brainer financial decision - keep Nastar and dump the parks.
Denison
New member
On top of direct costs, it looks like parks are an added liability headache:
Yesterday at library I read article from SKIING magazine, with following from lawyer's experience:
here is the link to original source
http://www.skinet.com/skiing/fondue-party/ski-culture/2009/10/a-tree-suddenly-got-in-my-way-im-suing
Yesterday at library I read article from SKIING magazine, with following from lawyer's experience:
here is the link to original source
http://www.skinet.com/skiing/fondue-party/ski-culture/2009/10/a-tree-suddenly-got-in-my-way-im-suing
highpeaksdrifter
New member
Re: financial analysis
You make a compelling argument; however, if it is a no brainer why don’t they do it your way? I’m sure they thought of it. I don’t think they’re trying to lose money so maybe they think it's a sound business decision.
zski said:
You make a compelling argument; however, if it is a no brainer why don’t they do it your way? I’m sure they thought of it. I don’t think they’re trying to lose money so maybe they think it's a sound business decision.
Not going to lie im on the exact other side of the argument here. I think that a good well recognized park will do wonders for the mtn. If your planning a family vacation and your kids really push the place with a good park your gunna be apt to go there, not many kids these days are going to push there parents to go to a resort because it has a nastar. The thruway park is now going to be a normal trail as is where the half pipe was which will be great for the ski school.
I am biased on this, i have been riding whiteface parks since i was a little kid. I think the expansion is a great thing, look at it this way. When its a spring day and all the park rats are straightlining in and out of everyone to get straight to the park THAT causes a huge liabilty. So now if they are just weaving in and out of people from broadway to Dbridge there isnt as much room for someone to get seriously hurt.
Also with the change in trails (this isnt so much of an expansion as it is a relocation) it will allow for a seperation of intermediate and expert jumps in the park. In turn making it safer for everyone
sorry for the poor grammer, I'm about to run to class so no chance to look it over. And if im wrong on some of these points, please correct me
I am biased on this, i have been riding whiteface parks since i was a little kid. I think the expansion is a great thing, look at it this way. When its a spring day and all the park rats are straightlining in and out of everyone to get straight to the park THAT causes a huge liabilty. So now if they are just weaving in and out of people from broadway to Dbridge there isnt as much room for someone to get seriously hurt.
Also with the change in trails (this isnt so much of an expansion as it is a relocation) it will allow for a seperation of intermediate and expert jumps in the park. In turn making it safer for everyone
sorry for the poor grammer, I'm about to run to class so no chance to look it over. And if im wrong on some of these points, please correct me
Denison
New member
I'm not against parks: take wide trail (Lower Valley) - build a park; make a park features on an "extra" little used trail (no example here) or cut new trail - make it a park.
What looks to be happening with Broadway - is the safe alternative to Upper Valley being take away from intermediate skiers.
What looks to be happening with Broadway - is the safe alternative to Upper Valley being take away from intermediate skiers.
i'm not so sure the liability issue is a sound arguement against parks. After all there are plenty of resorts that have them. in fact they're standard at the majority of mtns. So are some here saying these mtns are losing money due to Park litigation? And yet they still operate and expand their parks.
the evidence is that parks are good things, good for business and good for customers. Rumor around Gore has been Patrol doesn't want to be bothered with a Park. i don't discount that.
the evidence is that parks are good things, good for business and good for customers. Rumor around Gore has been Patrol doesn't want to be bothered with a Park. i don't discount that.
