J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by steverandomno

Charlie Locke, owner of Lake Louise, has got involved, so there is some hope that this will have a sensible resolution:

http://www.banffcragandcanyon.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2848470

Interesting new site comparing stats of North American resorts:

http://mountainvertical.com/

There are no details of who is behind this site, but it is still quite interesting.

The ski bus service in Banff will be reduced to just three central stops during this season. The buses used to pick up from all of the major hotels in Banff and are included with many packaged lift tickets.

With the ski hills located between 15 mins (Norquay), 25 mins (Sunshine village) and 45 mins (Lake Louise) out of town, this is an important service for those staying at the hotels who do not wish to hire their own transportation. Those wishing to use the bus service are now faced with up to a 1KM* walk in ski boots, taxi ride or local bus depending on which of the hotels they are staying in.

This has been brewing for a few years. The hotels, which foot part of the bill for the ski buses, have been threatening to reduce their contribution to the cost of this service for a few years.

and bus pickups will be from three locations — the parking lot behind the Mount Royal Hotel, the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel and the bus station.

From the following article:
http://www.banffcragandcanyon.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2838036

*Based on distance from furthest Banff Avenue hotel to the Mount Royal stop.

This is a great hill.

This video was taken on 14th March last year (not by me I'm afraid):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQf_njA02jY

Check out 25 October compared to 24 October on the following web cam:
http://www.zermatt.ch/en/page.cfm/webcam_findeln

Big White - Canada. Canadian/Australian ski instructors at the best family resort in North America.

Ise:

At this point the directors of my imaginary insurer are in stitches, we've taken this type of feedback to our AGM and along with the dafter claims & we're looking at putting it in a humorous book.

Interesting sense of humour.

You know exactly the difference between the US and Europe and exactly how the rules would apply.

That's the point. It's not clear.

You know the policy covers you in Europe for open pistes and freeride areas whether they're prepared or not and you know that depends on if the resort authorities have declared them open.

How would you define 'freeride area'? What the hell is 'freeride'? Isn't all skiing freeride?

You know exactly, precisely to millimetre when you step out of the terrain covered into what isn't.

To the millimetre? What pistes have you been skiing lately. Does that include ski routes?

In North America you know exactly how the rules work as well, in-bound, secured areas regardless of if they're prepared are covered and you know to the 100th of an inch the exact moment you leave that terrain.

In-bounds secured areas? What exactly does that mean? I can think of several places that might be considered in-bounds and secured, but I bet they would not be covered on a standard policy. Delirium dive? Corbet's couloir? Silverado?

So, anywhere within two metres of any piste is totally safe and should be covered on every insurance policy?

Where did I make that point? Of course not.

Two of our actuaries just collapsed after hysterical fits and needed to be hospitalised.

I hope you're hospitalized actuaries didn't accidentally ski off the side of the piste as they were collapsing.

Again you know perfectly well that's not true. And I know what the reply is, you're saying you can tell the difference, maybe you can, what you're not able to explain is how the insurer knows it's you and not Holiday Harry with a new pair of fat skis and no clue.

What is your point? Cast your mind back to when you were a 'holiday harry' (whatever contemptuous phrase that is for 95% of people who love this sport), did you really understand the difference between on and off piste?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that standard policies are perfectly clear to the holiday skier? Are you arguing that the holiday skier is clueless so it doesn't matter anyway? It's not clear to me. Are you involved in writing ski insurance policies?

I would probably fit your 'Holiday Harry' profile. I know my level of skill or lack thereof. It's exactly the 'Holiday Harry' skier that would benefit from clearer policies, as it is this type of skier that is most likely to push themselves into ambiguous, but controlled terrain, increasingly being offered by resorts. Especially those in North America.

My advice is to take the advice of your insurer. Not to engage in activities that you're not skilled enough for and to take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times.

Your insurer is responsible for whatever is in their policy, nothing more. Which is the reason why, from a skiers point of view, it helps to have a clearly defined policy. The phrase "take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times." is the sort of wording you might find in some of the more ridiculous policies available.

At the end of the day it's the buyers choice. Insurance companies are a business. They will provide what people are willing to buy and what they can make money from.

Few people are going to pay 10x on-piste only prices for the same level of cover.

It seems that, at the moment, you get what you pay for. It costs about 300 quid for annual cover for 'out of bounds' skiing in North America and Europe. If you look at a typical policy sold as part of a package, it often contains numerous get out clauses for even basic non-skiing related incidents. There are many policies that contain a clause allowing the insurance company to demand receipts for all of the clothing in your lost baggage before paying out. How likely is anyone to have those?

In a more serious vein, many skiing policies seem to exclude skiing outside of piste markers in Europe. This would include that nice 2m wide untracked slope between two parallel pistes. How they apply Euro-centric rules to north America Skiing, where there is no such thing as a piste, and thus no such thing as off-piste, is anybody's guess. How many policies available in the UK, that are supposed to cover North America, mention the phrases, ski hill, in-bounds, out of bounds, back-country or any of the other North American terms?

If underwriters are a lot better informed than we imagine, then what is their motivation behind being so unclear? Some are clear, generally the most expensive, some are extremely vague, mostly the cheaper ones. In my opinion, this speaks volumes.