Absolutely not. The Tahoe Basin should be unique, not just another Disney Land

I don’t understand why the extraordinary beautiful Angora Lakes are allowed to have human beings and structures to despoil the serenity and quiet of this picture perfect area. And sometimes airplanes even fly over the lakes. How dreadful. It is time for Angora Lakes to remove the parking lot (it is so ugly) and allow only hikers to walk the sacred ground.

I would think it would be reasonable to fly a limited amount of commercial flights into Tahoe/Day, something like 2 max. Whether they can fill them is another issue.

Ike, is correct, we need to work on the economy of Lake Tahoe and provide jobs that are just not here. Limited air service is a step in that direction.

I am ‘on record’ elsewhere as positing a part of airport history that is not usually considered, especially in those curious about why the airport is now laying fallow.

The impetus for increasing the length of the runway to accept ‘jets’ was originally spearheaded by Bill Harrah in the very early 60’s,upon noticing the international draw of Squaw Valley in 1960. By about 1962, a committe was formed, now represented by the brass plaque next to the Reception window @ “City Hall”. A lot of them I knew.

By 1965, it was ready. . .

Junkets were flown between Lake Tahoe and Mexico City on the Harrah Starliner (the size equivalent of a DC-9), where “high rollers” from Caracas, Buenos Aires, etc. converged upon Mexico City heading to Lake Tahoe.

This coincided with the introduction of baccarat, thought to be a more cosmopolitan draw for ‘European’ sensibilities.

As Lake Tahoe then had extensive market direction (much more comprehensive than today), they covered ‘all their bases’, resulting in the dynamic and vital community that was then. The momentum created then carried on for a couple of decades before taking a steeper dive, where we are today.

As mentioned above, either “two” flights, or one “in” and one “out” will not be commercially viable – as has been tried before by both United and American, with their “feeder” flights of yesteryear. Conversely, any more than that will be counterproductive to any though of a serene Tahoe experience.

Reno is fortunate in that it is the “major hub” orientation of the airline industry that belies serving the smaller markets in the U.S., like Tahoe.

Parenthetically, Reno/Tahoe also got a boost during the 2010 Whistler/Vancouver Olympics with a direct flight to Vancouver – whereas before you went to Seattle and took a “puddlejumper” to B.C.
This was done due to the volume of connecting flights from all over, given Reno’s directional proximity.

For Tahoe, the numbers that might be “penciled out” are mitigated by Highway 50 running parallel to our airport, as even on the best flight days, more autos carry more people than can ever be served by air – all day long, even in the so-called “shoulder season”.

I realize that is a dilemma, but it is a realistic dilemma for those who continually salivate over our ‘underutilized’ airport, as if they will be able to easily solve it just by putting their energy into it. . .

To “pay for” two flights/day and create an adequate marketing demand will probably be cost-prohibitive, as it is the creation of marketing demand that will need to be done first, but currently is not.

Tahoe has mostly been resting on their laurels, not fully realizing how utterly important it is that the “product” be improved first. . . to assure customer satisfaction in high enough numbers to sustain any reasonable market committment.

Anything short of that is a “pipe dream”.

Sorry, Ike & Joy – ‘property tax’ is not sufficient (especially from absentee owners) while daily sales taxes decline. Not to mention the second home market cannibalizing itself at the same time ‘foreclosures’ are prime. . .

Garry, you make some good points, and sound like a valuable resource to this town and to the effort of re-establishing commuter air service here. I’d love to sit down with you for coffee and chat one day.

Regarding “the product”. That product has not changed very much in the past other than its monetary values shifting up and down ie real estate. And right now, its way down. Fact is, there is no other eco tourism destination in North America that can offer what Tahoe has to offer. Not in Summer, Winter and certainly not when it comes to owning a piece of it. Right now, there are over 150 single family homes for sale in SLT for under 250K. That cant be matched at any other outdoor/eco tourist destination on this continent with comparable services and activities. So “the product” the outside world sees, is an old paradigm of “South Lake Tahoe – Has-been Gambling Destination” Instead of a more modern re-branding of “South Lake Tahoe – Eco Tourism Capitol of North America…and you can afford to own a piece of it!” This needs to happen, and I agree with you: Marketing is key for that re-branding. That, in conjunction with air service, is paramount.

As for paying for flights, thats not what we are after. Yes, a revenue guarantee is part of it, but with the Q400 at 77 seats, its so efficient, that the plane is revenue positive after 35 seats sold. Revenue programs only offset the risk of the route, not buy empty seats. Again, you are correct: The planes and airline business of yesteryear would not find an SLT route “viable”. But now they would, and do.

We want the community of SLT to all have a dog in the fight. Every business. Not just Vail and the Casinos, or the City of SLT. But a private, business driven community effort that brings jobs and qualified eco-tourists to this city.

We only want to start with one route: Southern CA. Our research shows there is a great pent-up demand for Tahoe in the LA area. So concentrate marketing to that single area until the route is in the black and then go to another one. Vegas, Seattle, Phoenix,…the whole time limiting the planes to the carrier flying the quietest, greenest plane available, and within 5 years, there are planes full of money spending tourists. Look at Mammoth’s program: In the black in 2 years. They’ve already picked up another carrier in the second year. Look at Telluride: $91 return in direct visitor spending to every $1 spent on the Airline program. And they’ve been building it since 1993.

With respect, I just dont think your view on air travel dynamics in relation to ski towns and eco-tourism is a very modern one. The carrier industry has been turned on its head, first by 9/11 then by the cost of fuel, and has made drastic changes in the past few years to remain viable. Those changes can and need to work for our town as economically, we are circling the drain.

Air service needs to be committed to the idea for some time. It will take some time for people to hear about the direct flights to South Lake.

I am shocked over and over with businesses around town that close within months, either ill conceived to start with and/or didn’t have enough bank to get into the black.

I would think most businesses need a couple years to become known, unless one has a very large advertising budget.

What we have to remember is we are completly different than all the other air service areas. When you land in Mammoth you can only go to Mammoth, same with Vail. Yes you can go to another ski resort close by but it’s still in Colorado, same area same state. Where we differ is most people who use the South Lake Tahoe, California Airport go to the great state of Nevada and spend a majority of their money there. We have always relied on the spillover from Stateline. Second homeowners who fly here still go to Nevada to buy supplies to fix their homes and everyone who would fly here would have to rent a car therefore adding to vehicle / airplane miles traveled. I think we need the Airport but the jury is still out as to whether or not we need an airline.

Hey Carl, I still have to try and make it to your rides on Tuesday, I always had a good time, I miss the Tacos. You are correct about we need to do a study on who goes where but in my experience and asking the airport workers I find that most go to Nv. Ask the fueler to just write down the visitors destination as they all get fuel. Of course you could also ask the taxi drivers and private charters. Without an “official” study it’s just my opinion based on 35 years living here and my wife worked for Avis for 10 years at the airport.

ET, your pilot friend is incompetent regarding landing and taking off from our airport. Large marginally powered airliners like the 727 may have gross weight limitations at high, hot airports, but the Q-400 does just fine and is a quiet turboprop. Also your friend needs to control RPM after takeoff during the departure phase to lower perceived DB’s while maintaining safety. Stupidity repeated is still stupidity.

Funny, Turnip Truck! Re: Angora Lakes: we live up near there and the fact that there is NO SIGN on the turnoff is ridiculous. Tourists driving around in circles wasting gas (an envionmentalist’s nightmare) asking the local residents for directions every ten minutes or so some days. We finally painted a nice sign, put it up near the FS gate. It lasted two days before SOMEONE (JH?) took it down. Why are there SO darned many no parking signs everywhere, but no direction sign for the thousands (and thousands) of people who go looking for that place every summer?

Ike:

Thanks for your comments, and for the offer – I’ll take you up on it, after responding to some specific points in yours.

Regarding the product (again): I’m well aware of the state of the product here: as implied, I was part of the intense vitality that existed specifically in the late ‘50’s to mid-60’s, which is why I referred to the momentum issue, as the “powers-that-be’ apparently did not understand Tahoe dynamics when they ‘bought in’ in the late 60’s and early to mid 70’s.

As any person who’s ever dealt with succession issues knows, it’s easy to turn over success to those coming in; the main problem is keeping it afloat, as all too often, they run it into the ground. In gaming terms, they simply started exporting both gaming & jobs,leaving their origins behind in the process.

I felt it prudent to completely review & understand the difference in eras, from the standpoint of human nature, and not just “modern” vs. “old fashioned”.

The 150 homes “under 250K” you mention roughly approximates the known “gross” (@ 144) foreclosed-upon inventory done for the City a while back – that’s great, but only if you have enough people that can afford “under 250K”, and the target market you aspire to may not be interested in any of those.

Elsewhere in the country, that issue is becoming problematic to selling anything ‘new’, which may yet turn out to be an advantage here, but not for the reasons you mention.

As to ecotourism, I was involved with the National Geographic Director of Sustainable Destinations subsequent to his presence in Tahoe when most of the Tourism people didn’t take his hint about the Tahoe Region, at least at the time.

I am fully aware of their intent, which is not necessarily completely about Tahoe – they sell magazines focusing on exotic locations around the globe, as well as domestic locations like Tahoe.

That Tahoe needed a new idea to adopt is undisputed, but there are better approaches than that provided by ‘geotourism’, the word coined by them.

Read Martha Honey’s “Who Owns Paradise” as further background on global ecotourism issues: it’s about the hospitality industry corralling locations (i.e.,low cost real estate)

I am not as familiar with the Q400 as I can be, but I am not as naïve to the potential for air traffic here as you suggest – I originally looked back at that possibility a few years ago with respect to the Eclipse (at the time, a particularly appealing idea, but not the one that lead to their difficulties )– it was their concept of better utilizing the nation’s 10,000 underused municipal airports in lieu of the dominant hub system.

My approach was to appeal to their individual ‘taxi’ idea in making Tahoe a hub (given time and distance proximity issues) for any cross traffic occurring in the Western United States: stay in Tahoe either coming or going anywhere from West to East, as a “stop-over” for a few days or weeks at a time.

At around a million dollars each (at that time), individual Eclipse owners and their fares could easily patronize the rental accommodation market here, at certain levels, increasing “heads on beds”.

The municipal airports are still under-used, including of course the Lake Tahoe Airport. This is still probably a better concept than everyone flying here to buy their own home, as the market will not bear that much in sheer numbers: not every passenger will buy a home, primary , secondarily, or tertiary.

That way, one does not need to rely on such a notoriously fickle market as Southern California, but could take advantage of marketing Tahoe itself, and not have to target specific, unproven audiences. Tahoe should be the “shining light”, in attracting necessary numbers.

I regularly interface with people from all over: Texas, England, Scandinavia, Florida, New York, all of whom enjoy Tahoe immensely. The small jet market inherently has much more flexibility to serve more than the individual marketplace: that’s the beauty of their agility and nimbleness.

I also have a friend that sells Cessna Citations, and discussed with him the beauty of quick turnarounds for 10-15 people at a time, from anywhere in the West.

You mention Telluride as taking 18 years to develop, and I know Mammoth has been trying to go in that direction for over 20, as Dave McCoy was instrumental in being in the airline industry himself to finally achieve flights there.

To follow your point about “going down the drain”, Tahoe does not have decades,or anything close to it, to “shine” again.

Besides Mammoth is at least 6 hours away from any significant market, Tahoe itself being the closest at considerably less than that.

These timespans would certainly affect the R.O.I. and/or any consideration of break-even points vis-a-vis Lake Tahoe, so my original response was to not have anyone waste their time (or money) with ‘half-baked’ ideas, to their ultimate dismay.

I am impressed with the 91 to 1 ratio, but wonder who is the ‘we’ you refer to over & over. . .

I can be reached via ‘tahoefuture@gmail.com’

Joe,
The NIMBY attitude comes largely from the League to Save Lake Tahoe – therein lies much of the problem.

I love that there is an intelligent discussion here. That said…

We can not compare ourselves to either Jackson Hole or Mammoth as neither of these have an International Airport less than 100 easy miles from their offerings. Both of those Airports are not competing with a larger, cheaper venue and have no competition and are uniquely isolated.

Our primary customers are families from the Bay Area who will not give up the ease of access and flexibility of driving their own vehicles much less pay more money and suffer the TSA to do so.

This town has done enough research and we all know that our customer base has changed to 2nd home owners and those from the Sacramento Valley and Bay area who are escaping the heat. At what point do we accept this and invest in public transit and improving our roads to accommodate ourselves and our actual customers and stop pursuing our past?

It is time to move forward and focus on what we know and not pursue our repeated pipe dream of an airport that will miraculously return our high rollers and steal them away from their local Indian Casino.

My two cents.
-Local Yokle

Dogwoman,

Thanks for the comment.

I’m sure you are right that our high rollers are probably not at the Indian Casinos. Probably all our middle and low rollers though.

-Local Yokle