[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55995-56060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26995]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Public Comments and Plaintiff's Response; United States of 
America v. American Skiing Company and S-K-I Limited

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16 (b)-(h), that Public Comments and 
Plaintiff's Response have been filed with the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia in United States v. American Skiing 
Company and S-K-I Limited, Civ. Action No. 96-01308.
    On June 11, 1996, the United States filed a Complaint seeking to 
enjoin a transaction in which American Skiing Company (``ASC'') agreed 
to acquire S-K-I Limited (``S-K-I''). ASC and S-K-I are the two largest 
owner/operators of ski resorts in New England, and this transaction 
would have combined eight of the largest ski resorts in this region. 
The Complaint alleged that the proposed acquisition would substantially 
lessen competition in providing skiing to eastern New England and Maine 
skiers in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18, 
and Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.
    Public comment was invited within the statutory 60-day comment 
period. Such comments, and the responses thereto, are hereby published 
in the Federal Register and filed with the Court. Brochures, newspaper 
clippings and miscellaneous materials appended to the Public Comments 
have not been reprinted here, however they may be inspected with copies 
of the Complaint, Stipulation, proposed Final Judgment, Competitive 
Impact Statement, Public Comments and Plaintiff's Response in Room 3233 
of the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, Tenth Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone: 202-633-
2481) and at the office of the Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia, Third Street and Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
    Copies of any of these materials may be obtained upon request and 
payment of a copying fee.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. American Skiing Company, 
and S-K-I Limited, Defendants.

[Civil Action No.: 96-01308-TPJ]

United States' Response to Public Comments

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(b)-(h) )(the ``Tunney Act''), the 
United States responds to the public comments received regarding the 
proposed Final Judgment in this case.

I. Background

    The United States filed a civil antitrust Complaint on June 11, 
1996, alleging that the proposed acquisition of the ski resorts of S-K-
I Limited (``S-K-I'') by American Skiing Company (``ASC'') would 
violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 18. The Complaint 
alleged that ASC and S-K-I were the two largest owner/operators of ski 
resorts in New England, and that the proposed transaction would combine 
eight of the largest ski resorts in this region. In particular, the 
acquisition would substantially increase the concentration among ski 
resorts to which eastern New England residents (i.e., those in Maine, 
eastern Massachusetts and Connecticut, and Rhode Island) practicably 
can go for weekend ski trips, and among those to which Maine residents 
practicably can go for day ski trips. As a result, this acquisition 
threatened to raise the price of, or reduce discounts for, weekend and 
day skiing to consumers living in those areas in violation of Section 7 
of the Clayton Act.
    At the same time the Complaint was filed, the United States also 
filed a proposed settlement that would permit ASC to complete its 
acquisition of S-K-I's ski resorts, but also require certain 
divestitures that would preserve competition for skiers in eastern New 
England and Maine. This settlement consists of a Stipulation and a 
proposed Final Judgment.
    The proposed Final Judgment orders the parties to sell all of S-K-
I's rights, titles, and interests in the Waterville Valley resort in 
Campton, New Hampshire, and all of ASC's rights, titles, and interests 
in the Mt. Cranmore resort in North Conway, New Hampshire, to one or 
more purchasers who have the capability to compete effectively in the 
provision of skiing for eastern New England and Maine skiers at 
Waterville Valley and Mt. Cranmore. The Stipulation and proposed Final 
Judgment also impose a hold separate agreement that requires defendants 
to ensure that, until the divestiture mandated by the proposed Final 
Judgment has been accomplished, S-K-I's Waterville Valley and ASC's Mt. 
Cranmore operations will be held separate and apart from, and operated 
independently of, defendants' other assets and businesses, and be 
preserved and maintained as saleable and economically viable, ongoing 
concerns, with competitively sensitive business information and 
decision-making divorced from that defendants' other ski resorts.
    A Competitive Impact Statement (``CIS''), explaining the basis for 
the complaint and proposed consent decree in settlement of the suit, 
was filed on June 18, 1996, and subsequently published for comment, 
along with the Stipulation and proposed Final Judgment, in the Federal 
Register on June 28, 1996 (61 FR 33765-33774), as required by the 
Tunney Act. The CIS explains in detail the provisions of the proposed 
Final Judgment, the nature and purpose of these proceedings, and the 
proposed acquisition alleged to be illegal.
    The United States, ASC, and S-K-I stipulated that the proposed 
Final Judgment may be entered after compliance with the Tunney Act. The 
plaintiff and defendants have now, with the exception of publishing the 
comments and this response in the Federal Register, completed the 
procedures the Tunney Act requires before the proposed Final Judgment 
can be entered.\1\ The sixty-day period for public comments expired on 
August 27, 1996. As of October 1, 1996, the United States had received 
98 comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The United States plans to publish the comments and this 
response promptly in the Federal Register. It will provide the Court 
with a certificate of compliance with the requirements of the Tunney 
Act and file a motion for entry of final judgment once publication 
takes place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments, which are collected in the Appendix to this 
Response,\2\ came from a variety of sources. The most comprehensive 
comment was submitted by the Mount Washington Valley Task Force, 
chaired by James B. Somerville,

[[Page 55996]]

manager of Town of Conway, New Hampshire (the ``Conway Report''). The 
other comments came primarily from individuals such as skiers, property 
owners, local business persons, and others. Many of the points made by 
individual commentors were spelled out in more detail in the Conway 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The comments have been numbered, and a log prepared. For 
ease of reference, the United States in this Response refers to 
individual comments by the log number assigned to the comment, with 
the exception of number 98, which is referred to as the ``Conway 
Report.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

A. Overview

    Several comments (3, 67, 75, 76, 97) support the proposed Final 
Judgment. In particular they express approval of the provisions that 
require the divestiture of the Mt. Cranmore ski resort and related 
assets. These commentors note that economies of scale do not 
necessarily result in lower prices (76, 97) and that LBO Resort 
Enterprises (the predecessor to ASC) raised prices and eliminated 
discount voucher programs at Mt. Cranmore after acquiring it. (67, 97) 
``LBO only discounts when their competition is discounting and 
impacting their skier visits and profit margin.'' (76) One commentor 
stated, ``We need more competition, not less competition, in this 
area.'' (97) The commentor also noted that the new owners of Mt. 
Cranmore would have as much or more interest as LBO in ensuring that 
Mr. Cranmore remains a healthy, vigorous competitor and in promoting 
the local economy. Id.
    The majority of the comments submitted, however, including the 
Conway Report, expressed opposition, primarily to the provision of the 
proposed Final Judgment requiring divestiture of Mt. Cranmore. These 
comments can be arranged in a line of argument as follows:

--the antitrust laws should not apply to skiing;
--the Department misconceived the product markets for day and weekend 
skiing;
--the Department misconceived the geographic markets for eastern New 
England weekend skiing and for Maine day skiing;
--the proposed merger does not pose any anticompetitive problem;
--the proposed divestiture does not solve the anticompetitive problem 
alleged in the Complaint; and
--Mt. Cranmore is not viable except as part of the post-merger entity.

    The comments in opposition to the proposed Final Judgment are 
addressed in the following sections of this Response and are arranged 
by the antitrust issues they raise.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This Response addresses all of the antitrust issues that are 
raised in the comments and issues related to the substance of the 
Complaint and proposed Final Judgment. Unrelated arguments and 
objections are not discussed, such as complaints about statements 
reported in the press (32, 60). These comments are irrelevant to the 
issues of this case, and not properly subject of comment to which 
the Antitrust Division must respond under the Tunney Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Clayton Act Applies to Acquisitions in the Ski Industry

    The Conway Report along with several commentors (12, 26, 32, 33, 
56, 77, 82, 89) suggest that the antitrust laws should not apply to the 
ASC/S-K-I merger because skiing is a ``leisure activity.'' They 
maintain that the majority of skiers are middle- and upper-income 
people who pay for the activity with ``discretionary dollars.''
    In general, however, the antitrust laws protect consumers in 
whatever markets they choose to spend their money. Specifically, 
Section 7 of the Clayton Act does not distinguish between leisure 
activities and other lines of commerce. Rather, subject to certain 
jurisdictional qualifications, Section 7 prohibits all acquisitions 
``where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce 
in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be 
substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.'' 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 18 (emphasis added). The provision of weekend and day 
skiing clearly constitute lines of commerce subject to Section 7 and 
other antitrust laws. The business of skiing comprises all services 
related to providing access to downhill skiing, including but not 
limited to, providing lifts; ski patrol; snowmaking; design, building; 
and grooming of trails; skiing lessons; and ancillary services such as 
food service, entertainment, and lodging. See Aspen Highlands Skiing 
Corp v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, aff'd, 472 U.S. 585 (1984) 
(jury in private antitrust case found relevant product market and 
injury in downhill skiing). Thus, the Department's antitrust analysis 
of the proposed merger of ski slopes is appropriate.

C. Downhill Skiing Is a Relevant Product Market for Antitrust Purposes

    The Conway report asserts that the ``ski industry is not in 
competition with itself,'' but rather is part of a larger leisure and 
sports industry. For purposes of antitrust analysis, Conway and several 
commentors (22, 41, and 64) would define the relevant product market as 
all leisure and sports activities, including gambling, cruises, warm 
weather resorts, adventure/experience trips, shopping, theater, music, 
and professional sports. Conway at 18.
    The Antitrust Division's review of mergers is governed by the 
Clayton and Sherman Acts, Supreme Court precedent, and the ``Horizontal 
Merger Guidelines'' issued jointly by the Department and the Federal 
Trade Commission in 1992. The standard for defining a relevant product 
market is set forth below:

    Specifically, the Agency will begin with each product (narrowly 
defined) produced or sold by each merging firm and ask what would 
happen if a hypothetical monopolist of that product imposed at least 
a `small but significant and nontransitory' increase in price, but 
the terms of sale of all other products remained constant. If, in 
response to the price increase, the reduction in sales of the 
product would be large enough that a hypothetical monopolist would 
not find it profitable to impose such an increase in price, then the 
Agency will add to the product group the product that is the next-
best substitute for the merging firm's product.

Horizontal Merger Guidelines Sec. 1.11. See Brown Shoe v. U.S., 370 
U.S. 294 (1962).
    Applying this standard to the present case, downhill skiing is the 
relevant product market. For purposes of this merger, downhill skiing 
differs from other winter recreational activities (such as cross-
country-skiing, ice skating, snowmobiling, ice climbing, and cruises to 
warm weather resorts) and from all-weather activities (such as shopping 
and gambling), because as the Department's investigation showed, if 
prices at ASC resorts went up a small but significant amount after the 
merger (for example, by five percent without inflation or any quality 
improvements), people might switch where they went to ski, but they 
would continue to ski rather than switch to these other recreational 
activities. Typical downhill skiers would not switch to an activity 
such as ice-climbing, for example, just because the price of a downhill 
ticket increases by a small amount. They certainly would not switch in 
sufficient numbers to defeat a price increase. Based on this 
information, downhill skiing is the appropriate relevant product market 
for our analysis.

D. There Are Regional Geographic Markets for Weekend Skiing in Eastern 
New England and for Day Skiing in Maine

    The Conway Report (p. 5) and commentors 34, 41, and 64 suggest that 
the relevant geographic market for purposes of analyzing the proposed 
acquisition is increasingly global in nature. Alternatively, Conway and 
numerous commentors (1, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 30, 33, 44, 47-50, 
53-57, 62, 70-72, 78-81, 85, 86, 89) maintain that there are many 
resorts in the Mt.

[[Page 55997]]

Washington Valley, elsewhere in New England, and even in the western 
U.S. that compete with Mt. Cranmore. Therefore, the commentors assert 
that the Department's eastern New England/weekend and Maine/day 
geographic markets are too narrow to be meaningful.
    The standard for defining a relevant geographic market is set forth 
below:

    In defining the geographic market or markets affected by a 
merger, the Agency will begin with the location of each merging firm 
(or each plant of a multiplant firm) and ask what would happen if a 
hypothetical monopolist of the relevant product at that point 
imposed at least a `small but significant and nontransitory' 
increase in price, but the terms of sale at all other locations 
remained constant. If, in response to the price increase, the 
reduction in sales of the product at that location would be large 
enough that a hypothetical monopolist producing or selling the 
relevant product at the merging firm's location would not find it 
profitable to impose such an increase in price, then the Agency will 
add the location from which production is the next-best substitute 
for production at the merging firm's location.

Horizontal Merger Guidelines Sec. 1.21. See Brown Shoe v. U.S., 370 
U.S. 294 (1962).
    Thus, the appropriate starting point for defining the relevant 
geographic market is the area in and around ASC's and S-K-I's resorts. 
If ASC could impose a ``small but significant and nontransitory'' price 
increase after the merger (for example, five percent) without causing a 
sufficient number of skiers to switch to ski slopes in other geographic 
areas and defeat the price increase, then the appropriate geographic 
market is limited to these locations. Resorts in other geographic 
regions of the country or abroad should not be included in the relevant 
geographic market.
    The Department's investigation revealed that geographic markets for 
weekend and day skiing are indeed regional, rather than national or 
international. Skiers are not willing to travel an unlimited distance 
to ski. Traveling to distant ski resorts imposes a burden on the skier, 
either in the form of excessive driving time or large additional 
expense for airfare. The determinative factors in how far people are 
willing to travel for skiing are the duration of the trip (e.g., single 
day, weekend, extended vacation), the qualitative aspects of the 
particular resort (e.g., number of trails and lifts, variety and 
difficulty of trails, snowmaking, night skiing, accommodations, and 
other amenities), and price. Ski resorts may compete in several 
markets--quite local markets for day skiers, larger markets for weekend 
skiers, and quite large markets for extended skier vacations. Because 
ski resorts can offer different prices in these different markets, each 
one is appropriate for antitrust analysis.
    Prior to the proposed acquisition, ASC and S-K-I each operated a 
total of four ski resorts in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. They 
were the two largest owner/operators of ski resorts in New England, and 
this transaction would have combined eight of the largest ski resorts 
in this region. The Department's investigation revealed that ASC and S-
K-I competed directly and significantly for two distinct groups of 
skiers--eastern New England weekend skiers (i.e., those in Maine, 
eastern Massachusetts and Connecticut, and Rhode Island) and Maine day 
skiers. Although other categories of skiers (e.g., skiers from other 
areas and skiers on extended vacation) visit ASC's and S-K-I's resorts, 
those skiers were not adversely affected by the merger. The proposed 
acquisition substantially increased concentration only among the ski 
resorts to which eastern New England residents practicably could go for 
weekend ski trips, and to which Maine residents practicably could go 
for day ski trips. As a result, the acquisition threatened to raise the 
price of, or reduce discounts for, weekend and day skiing to consumers 
living in these areas.
1. Eastern New England Weekend Skiers
    Eastern New England residents who wish to ski over a weekend can 
feasibly turn only to a limited number of resorts with adequate 
services (e.g., accommodations, number and variety of trails, and other 
amenities) and that are located nearby in Maine, New Hampshire, 
Vermont, or western Massachusetts. These are the resorts that have the 
necessary qualities and are within a reasonable traveling distance for 
eastern New England weekend skiers.
    The Department considered the ski areas identified by the Conway 
Report along with many others as potential choices for New England 
weekend skiers. Of the fourteen resorts identified by the Conway 
Report, four would have been owned by ASC after the acquisition as 
originally proposed. Smaller ski resorts among the fourteen (such as 
King Pine, Shawnee Peak, Black Mountain, and Gunstock) and other 
resorts located farther away (such as New York, the West Coast, and 
abroad) cannot, and after this transaction would not, constrain prices 
charged to weekend skiers living in eastern New England. The smaller 
resorts lack the qualitative aspects previously identified (number of 
trails and lifts, variety and difficulty of trails, snowmaking, night 
skiing, accommodations, and other amenities) and the more distant 
resorts are too far away to constrain a small but significant price 
increase after the merger of ASC and S-K-I resorts. Although eastern 
New England skiers occasionally choose to ski at these smaller or even 
more distant resorts, skiing at such resorts is not a practical or 
economic alternative for most eastern New England weekend skiers most 
of the time.
    Ski resorts in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and western 
Massachusetts that have the necessary qualities and services to attract 
weekend skiers from eastern New England can charge different effective 
prices to these skiers than they charge to others. Eastern New England 
weekend skiers can be identified easily by the ski resorts that are 
reasonable alternatives for these consumers. These ski resorts can 
charge eastern New England weekend skiers different prices than charged 
to day skiing customers, to customers coming from other parts of the 
country, or to customers who stay longer than a weekend. For example, 
ski resorts can offer coupons for discounted lift tickets packaged with 
lodging and/or airfare, either through direct mail or through 
advertising in local papers in the New York, Washington D.C., or 
Atlanta metropolitan areas, and not offer such coupons in eastern New 
England. A single firm controlling all the resorts in Maine, New 
Hampshire, and Vermont with the most attractive qualities and services 
for weekend skiing would be able to raise prices a small but 
significant amount to eastern New England weekend skiers without losing 
sufficient business to smaller or more distant resorts to make the 
price increase unprofitable.
    Based on this analysis, the Department concluded, and maintains, 
that the provision of weekend downhill skiing to eastern New England 
residents is a relevant geographic market within the meaning of Section 
7 of the Clayton Act.
2. Maine Day Skiers
    Before the proposed acquisition, ASC provided skiing to Maine day 
skiers primarily at its Sunday River, Attitash/Bear Peak, and Mt. 
Cranmore ski resorts. S-K-I provided skiing to Maine day skiers 
primarily at its Sugarloaf resort. The acquisition would have brought 
these alternatives for Maine skiers under common ownership and control. 
Moreover, the ASC acquisition as proposed would have eliminated 
Waterville Valley as a non-ASC-owned resort that Maine day skiers could

[[Page 55998]]

consider. Maine residents feasibly can turn only to resorts in Maine 
and eastern New Hampshire for day skiing trips. These are the resorts 
that are within a reasonable traveling distance for Maine day skiers.
    Ski resorts located farther from Maine and eastern New Hampshire 
cannot, and after this transaction would not, constrain prices charged 
to day skiers living in Maine. Although Maine skiers occasionally 
choose to ski at such more distant resorts, skiing at such resorts is 
not a practical or economic alternative for most Maine day skiers most 
of the time.
    Ski resorts in Maine and eastern New Hampshire easily can charge 
different prices to Maine day skiers than they charge to other skiers. 
Maine day skiers, for example, can be identified by the ski resorts 
that are reasonable alternatives for these consumers to drive to for a 
day of skiing. These ski resorts can charge Maine day skiers different 
effective prices than those charged to out-of-state skiers or to Maine 
skiers who stay multiple days. A single firm controlling all the ski 
resorts in Maine and eastern New Hampshire would be able to raise 
prices a small but significant amount to Maine day skiers (mainly by 
reducing or eliminating discounts) without losing so much business as 
to make the price increase unprofitable.
    Based on this analysis the Department concluded, and maintains, 
that the provision of day skiing to Maine residents is a relevant 
geographic market within the meaning of Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
    The Conway Report makes the following assertions:

--within an hour and fifteen minutes of North Conway there are fourteen 
ski areas that create a competitive market place for Maine day skiers 
(Conway at 5-6);
--data from 1996 shows that Mt. Cranmore had 125,000 skier visits of 
which 6,500 (5.3%) were from Maine and Attitash had 201,000 skier 
visits of which 4,422 (2.2%) were from Maine compared with 92,846 total 
skier visits from Maine to the state of New Hampshire; thus, Maine 
skiers already have sufficient alternatives (Id. at 8);
--the Maine Attorney General's Office negotiated a pricing discount 
program for Maine residents ``which the DOJ is apparently satisfied 
with'' (Id. at 9).

    As with New England weekend skiers, the Department considered all 
fourteen of the ski areas identified in the Conway Report along with 
many others in its analysis of the competitive consequences of the 
proposed merger on Maine day skiers. Of the fourteen ski areas 
identified in the Conway Report, three (Cranmore, Attitash, and Sunday 
River) were owned by ASC and one (Waterville Valley) was owned by S-K-
I. Many of the other smaller resorts lack the qualitative aspects 
previously identified (number of trails and lifts, variety and 
difficulty of trails, snowmaking, night skiing, and other amenities) to 
constrain a small but significant price increase after the merger of 
ASC and S-K-I resorts. Moreover, although many of these resorts are 
within an hour and fifteen minutes of North Conway, the focus of our 
inquiry is on the distance for day skiers from population centers in 
Maine. Many skiers from Portland, Maine, for example, would not find it 
practical to drive an additional hour and fifteen minutes beyond North 
Conway, where Mt. Cranmore is located (an hour and a half or more trip 
for Portland residents), for a day ski trip. For these residents, the 
Maine resorts along with Mt. Cranmore and Attitash in eastern New 
Hampshire are the most feasible resorts for day skiing.
    Rather than focus on the percentage of Maine skier visits to Mt. 
Cranmore compared to total New Hampshire skier visits from Maine, the 
Department believes the appropriate focus should be on the practical 
alternatives available to the Maine day skier after the merger that 
could constrain a small but significant price increase by ASC. Prior to 
the proposed acquisition, Sunday River (ASC) and Sugarloaf (S-K-I) in 
Maine and Mt. Cranmore and Attitash (ASC) in New Hampshire provided 
practical and viable alternatives in terms of distance, qualitative 
aspects, and price competition for Maine day skiers. After the 
acquisition ASC would own Sunday River, Sugarloaf, and Attitash. With 
the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore, the Department believes Maine day 
skiers will have a feasible and attractive competing alternative to ASC 
resorts in Maine and New Hampshire. According to the Conway Report 
statistics, Mt. Cranmore already receives almost one and one-half times 
more skier visits from Maine than Attitash. The divesture provides the 
opportunity for even more Maine day skiers to ski Mt. Cranmore as an 
alternative to ASC resorts in the immediate vicinity and to constrain 
noncompetitive price increases by ASC.
    The Maine Attorney General's Office did negotiate a pricing 
discount program with ASC for Maine residents. However, the program is 
a percentage-based program. It requires ASC at its Sunday River and 
Sugarloaf resorts to compute a ratio of the average resident and non-
resident ticket prices for the 1995-96 season and maintain that ratio 
in future years. The Department generally prefers not to attempt to 
remedy anticompetitive mergers with price regulation, but rather to 
ensure that there is a structurally competitive marketplace that will 
provide competitive pricing and high quality goods and services on its 
own as a result of the competition. By preserving Mt. Cranmore as a 
competitive alternative to ASC ski resorts, the Department believes the 
marketplace itself will provide lower prices, higher quality services, 
and attractive alternatives for Maine day skiers.

E. The Proposed Merger Is Likely To Result in Increased Prices or 
Reduced Discounts in the Two Markets as Alleged

    The Conway Report and commentors raise several issues about 
pricing:

--the merger is not anticompetitive because it does not create a 
single-firm monopoly (Conway at 6);
--the Department has not shown that a price increase will result from 
the merger (Id. at 14);
--economies of scale may actually allow reduction in ticket prices 
(commentors 9, 22, 53, 84);
--the Department has not shown that price increases will be 
``unacceptable to the public;'' higher prices are ``justified and 
acceptable to skiers when there is an increase in the level of 
services,'' which should be taken into account (Conway at 6); price 
increases would reflect improved conditions that LBO brings to the 
resort, not monopoly pricing (commentors 12, 25).

    The purpose of the Department's review of mergers under the 
antitrust laws is to identify and challenge mergers that reduce 
competition, facilitate the creation or exercise of market power, or 
threaten to increase prices or reduce product quality to consumers. The 
Clayton Act does not require the Untied States to wait until there is 
an actual single-firm monopoly created by the merger, nor does it 
require the Department to violate the antitrust laws. It simply 
requires a showing that the effect of an acquisition ``may be 
substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.'' 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 18 (emphasis added). Market power can be exercised 
through supracompetitive prices in market structures that are well 
short of an actual monopoly. The Department's analysis of the ASC 
transaction predicted that the new entity as originally proposed would 
have had sufficient market power to impose price increases.

[[Page 55999]]

    In its analysis of post-merger market power, the Department also 
considers and evaluates potential efficiencies of the proposed 
transaction that could bring improved service or lower prices to 
consumers. In the present transaction the Department determined that 
any efficiencies resulting from the proposed merger that were 
obtainable by ASC in operating multiple resorts were not sufficient to 
offset the potential for price increases as a result of the market 
power acquired by ASC after the merger.
    Moreover, the proposition that price increases after the 
acquisition might be ``acceptable'' to the public would confirm that 
the markets at issue are properly defined and threatened with loss of 
competition. It could mean not only that consumers would face higher 
prices, but not have adequate competitive alternatives to which they 
could turn. Furthermore, the policy underlying the antitrust laws as 
enacted by Congress and applied by the courts is that competition is 
the best way to achieve the optimal combination of price and quality. 
An antitrust analysis evaluates a merger by considering that the 
quality of the product or service is held constant in determining 
whether the merged entity would have sufficient market power to impose 
a small but significant price increase on consumers. Price increases 
that proportionally reflect improvements in quality or service are not 
considered anticompetitive.
    The Conway Report and several commenters also state:

--skiers do not make their decision where to ski solely on price; other 
factors are ski conditions, ski terrain, lift facilities, snowmaking, 
and amenities (Conway at 14; commentors 9, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, 54, 61, 
93);
--if the merger results in an anticompetitive price increase, people 
will stop skiing (commentors 22, 25, 34, 58, 72, 77) or other resorts 
will expand output and undercut those prices (Conway at 15; commentor 
43); state-owned mountains in New Hampshire (Sunapee and Cannon) 
provide price control (commentors 47-49, 55, 57, 62);
--the merger will hold prices down by encouraging more mid-week skiers 
(commentor 73).

    The Department did consider factors such as ski conditions, ski 
terrain, lift facilities, snowmaking, and amenities in defining the 
product market. The determinative factors in how far people are willing 
to travel for skiing at a particular mountain are the duration of the 
trip (e.g., single day, weekend, extended vacation), the qualitative 
aspects of the resort (such as those outlined above), and price. The 
lack of these qualitative factors are the very reason many of the 
smaller resorts identified in the Conway Report are not feasible 
alternatives for substantial numbers of New England weekend skiers.
    In its analysis of the market power that ASC would have after its 
acquisition of S-K-I, the Department considered whether people would 
stop skiing if prices increased at ASC resorts or switch to other 
resorts that had lower prices. Although some New England weekend skiers 
and Maine day skiers may choose to stop skiing or to ski at smaller 
resorts with less desirable qualitative aspects in response to a small 
but significant price increase by ASC, they would not do so in 
sufficient numbers to defeat such a price increase. The typical 
downhill skier who goes to ASC resorts for the qualitative experience 
is unlikely to stop skiing or switch to smaller resorts with less 
amenities because ticket prices increase by a small amount, such as 
five percent.
    Moreover, many of the smaller resorts are unlikely to be able to 
expand facilities within a timely fashion to defeat an anticompetitive 
price increase. For example, to increase the number of lifts and trails 
or add snowmaking or night skiing capability would take these resorts 
more than two years in most cases and/or require a long regulatory 
approval process if their resort is on national forest land.

F. The Proposed Divestiture Solves the Anticompetitive Problem Alleged 
in the Complaint

    Commentors 11, 43, and 45 suggested that if the Department had 
concerns about the ASC/S-K-I acquisition, it should have required ASC 
to divest a larger resort, such as Killington or Sunday River, instead 
of smaller resorts like Waterville Valley and Cranmore.
    In analyzing the proposed Final Judgment, ``the court's function is 
not to determine whether the resulting array of rights and liabilities 
is one that will best serve society, but only to confirm that the 
resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.'' 
United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1576 (D.C. Cir.), 
cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 487 (1993) (emphasis added, internal quotation 
and citation omitted). The relief in the proposed Final Judgment is 
sufficient to preserve competition for eastern New England weekend and 
Maine day skiers.
    Before the proposed acquisition, Sunday River (ASC) and Sugarloaf 
(S-K-I) in Maine; Mt. Cranmore (ASC), Attitash (ASC), and Waterville 
Valley (S-K-I) in New Hampshire; and Sugarbush (ASC), Killington (S-K-
I), and Mt. Snow (S-K-I) in Vermont all provided practical and viable 
alternatives in terms of distance, qualitative aspects, and price 
competition for New England weekend and Maine day skiers. After the 
acquisition ASC would own Sunday River, Sugarloaf, Attitash, Sugarbush, 
Killington, and Mt. Snow. By reaching an agreement to divest Mt. 
Cranmore and Waterville Valley, New England weekend and Maine day 
skiers will continue to have sufficient feasible and attractive 
alternatives to ASC resorts. Divesting Killington or another Vermont 
resort, for example, would have been of no benefit to Maine day skiers.
    Moreover, the divestitures ordered in the proposed Final Judgment 
will resolve the substantial increase in concentration brought about by 
the proposed transaction. With these divestitures, the post-merger HHI 
\4\ for the eastern New England weekend skiing market will be below 
1800, and the parties' post-merger share of that market will be less 
than 40 percent. The post-merger HHI for the Maine day skiing market 
will be slightly over 1900 with these divestitures, and that parties' 
post-merger share of that market will be less than 35 percent. Given 
these post-divestiture HHI levels, the combined firm's post-divestiture 
market shares, and the number and size of independent ski resorts 
remaining in the affected markets, the proposed transaction is not 
likely to lead to an unilateral anticompetitive effect or to a higher 
probability of coordinated behavior, provided the divestitures are 
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``HHI'' is an abbreviation for the Herfindahl-Hirschman 
Index, a commonly accepted measures of market concentration. It is 
calculated by squaring the market share of each firm competing in 
the market and then summing the resulting numbers. For example, for 
a market consisting of four firms with shares of thirty, thirty, 
twenty and twenty percent, the HHI is 2600 
(302+302+202+202=2600). The HHI takes into 
account the relative size and distribution of the firms in a market 
and approaches zero when a market consists of a large number of 
firms of relatively equal size. The HHI increases both as the number 
of firms in the market decreases and as the disparity in size 
between those firms increases.
    Markets in which the HHI is between 1000 and 1800 are considered 
to be moderately concentrated and those in which the HHI is in 
excess of 1800 points are considered to be concentrated. 
Transactions that increase the HHI by more than 100 points in 
moderately concentrated and concentrated markets presumptively raise 
antitrust concerns under the Department of Justice and Federal Trade 
Commission 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Unique Aspects of Mt. Cranmore

    The Conway Report and several commentors suggest that there are a

[[Page 56000]]

number of unique aspects of Mt. Cranmore that should be considered:

--there are various economies associated with operating and marketing 
Attitash/Bear Creek together with Mt. Cranmore; these economies will be 
lost if Mt. Cranmore is divested, making Mt. Cranmore less viable 
(Conway at 13; commentor 94);
--the proposed Final Judgment reduces options for consumers because it 
eliminates the Attitash/Cranmore joint ticket now offered through ASC 
(commentors 1, 16, 21, 30, 32, 50, 63, 66, 70, 72, 77, 80, 85, 86); and 
the Department is incapable of determining whether the prospective 
buyer will be a strong operator (commenter 32);
--divestiture would have a significant adverse economic impact on the 
area around Mt. Cranmore (Conway at 12-13; commentors 2, 5, 12, 14, 17-
19, 22-25, 29, 31, 33-36, 38, 43, 47-53, 55, 57, 59-62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 
74, 83, 84, 91-96);
--Mt Cranmore cannot survive on a stand alone basis (Conway at 12-13; 
commentors 2, 5, 15-18, 23, 28, 29, 34, 37, 38, 41, 45, 50, 59, 61, 63, 
64, 66, 69, 71, 78, 85, 86, 89, 94); it needs to be part of a larger 
organization because of economies in marketing (Conway at 12-13; 
commentors 2, 9, 19, 21, 23, 26, 28-30, 54, 64, 77, 90, 96);
--Cranmore was struggling to survive before ASC purchased it; ASC has 
invested heavily in Mt. Cranmore--in snowmaking equipment, lifts, and 
marketing (Conway at 12-13; commentors 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 22, 
24-29, 37-39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 66, 69-72, 
77, 79, 80-82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95).

    There probably are some economies associated with operating and 
marketing Mt. Cranmore together with ASC's other ski resorts. But most 
relevant economies of scale, such as large-scale purchasing of lifts 
and equipment and sharing overhead and administrative staff, also can 
be obtained if Cranmore is purchased by another owner that operates 
multiple ski resorts. Economies of scale associated with being part of 
a larger organization are not unique to ASC, and there is no reason to 
think they will be lost as a result of a divestiture of Cranmore to 
another operator with multiple resorts.
    Regarding joint tickets for both Attitash and Cranmore, nothing 
prohibits the new owner of Cranmore, for example, from entering into 
joint ticket arrangements with Attitash or other ski resorts for 
tickets that would be good at any of the cooperative resorts. Moreover, 
if Cranmore and Waterville Valley were divested to the same buyer, the 
new owner could offer a joint ticket to these two resorts. In the past, 
sales revenues from one joint Attitash/Cranmore ticket has been at most 
less than four percent of Cranmore ticket revenues. Only one percent of 
Cranmore ticket purchasers have paid the nominal upgrade fee to be able 
to ski Attitash. If anything, the lack of a joint ticket would seem to 
hurt Attitash, not Cranmore, by this measure. Given the ability to 
continue offering joint ticket arrangements with other resorts, the 
separation of ownership of Attitash and Cranmore should not be a 
significant factor in the decision to divest Cranmore.
    It clearly advances the Department's goal that a financially strong 
buyer with good management skills be found to purchase Mt. Cranmore. 
The whole purpose behind the divestiture is to maintain Mt. Cranmore as 
a healthy, vigorous, independent competitor to ASC. Such competition 
should spur increasingly improved ski services and conditions while 
maintaining competitive pricing. Although the Department cannot 
guarantee the financial success of the new purchaser of Mt. Cranmore, 
the Department does have experience in evaluating the strength and 
potential success of prospective purchasers in consent decree cases 
over the years, and believes it can do so in this case.
    The Department recognizes that maintaining Mt. Cranmore as a 
healthy, vigorous competitor not only is important to competition, but 
also is very important to the citizens and businesses located near Mt. 
Cranmore in the Mount Washington Valley. In performing a merger 
analysis, the Department's responsibility is to prevent violations of 
the antitrust laws and to preserve competition. The principle that 
underlines the antitrust laws enacted by Congress is that vigorous, 
free market competition is the best way to protect the economy. The 
Department is not charged, and it would be beyond its appropriate 
sphere if inquiry, to evaluate directly--and base its enforcement 
decisions on--the economic impact of the collateral spending of 
consumers in areas other than the product markets being investigated. 
Rather, this interest is considered and protected indirectly by 
protecting a competitive free market and, in the specific case of a 
divestiture, in ensuring the viability of the divested assets as a 
vigorous competitor. Preserving Mt. Cranmore as a vigorous competitor 
is the essence of the relief sought in the consent decree; by 
protecting competition, the proposed relief also should protect 
collateral spending by consumers and the resulting local economic 
vitality.
    Whether Mt. Cranmore can survive as a strong competitor on a stand-
alone basis is one of the factors the Department will evaluate in 
analyzing the suitability of potential purchasers. The proposed 
divesture would allow Cranmore and Waterville Valley to be sold to a 
single purchaser as one option. Moreover, the benefits that ASC brought 
to Mt. Cranmore by investing in snowmaking equipment, and marketing 
will enure to the benefit of the new purchaser and put Cranmore in that 
much better position to be a strong competitor to ASC.

III. The Legal Standard Governing the Court's Public Interest 
Determination

    Once the United States moves for entry of the proposed Final 
Judgment, the Tunney Act directs the Court to determine whether entry 
of the proposed Final Judgment ``is in the public interest.'' 15 U.S.C. 
Sec. 16(e). In making that determination, ``the court's function is not 
to determine whether the resulting array of rights and liabilities is 
one that will best serve society, but only to confirm that the 
resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.'' 
United States v. Western Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572, 1576 (D.C. Cir.) 
cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 487 (1993) (emphasis added, internal quotation 
and citation omitted).\5\ The Court should evaluate the relief set 
forth in the proposed Final Judgment and should enter the Judgment if 
it falls within the government's ``rather broad discretion to settle 
with the defendant within the reaches of the public interest.'' U.S.  
v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448, 1461 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Accord United 
States v. Associated Milk Producers, 534 F.2d 113, 117-18 (8th Cir. 
1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 940 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Western Electric decision concerned a consensual 
modification of an existing antitrust decree. The Court of Appeals 
assumed that the Tunney Act was applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court is not ``to make de novo determination of facts and 
issues.'' Western Elec., 993 F.2d at 1577. Rather, ``[t]he balancing of 
competing social and political interests affected by a proposed 
antitrust decree must be left, in the first instance, to the discretion 
of the Attorney General.'' Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted 
throughout), In particular, the Court must defer to the Department's 
assessment of likely competitive consequences, which it may reject 
``only

[[Page 56001]]

if it has exceptional confidence that adverse antitrust consequences 
will result--perhaps akin to the confidence that would justify a court 
in overturning the predictive judgments of an administrative agency.'' 
Id.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Tunney Act does not give a court authority to impose 
different terms on the parties. See, e.g., United States v. American 
Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 153 n. 95 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd 
sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983)(Mem.); 
accord H.R. Rep. No. 1463, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 8 (1974). A court, of 
course, can condition entry of a decree on the parties' agreement to 
a different bargain, see, e.g., AT & T, 552 F. Supp. at 225, but if 
the parties do not agree to such terms, the court's only choices are 
to enter the decree the parties proposed or to leave the parties to 
litigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court may not reject a decree simply ``because a third party 
claims it could be better treated.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 n.9. 
The Tunney Act does not empower the court to reject the remedies in the 
proposed Final Judgment based on the belief that ``other remedies were 
preferable.'' Id. at 1460. As Judge Greene has observed:

    If courts acting under the Tunney Act disapproved proposed 
consent decrees merely because they did not contain the exact relief 
which the court would have imposed after a finding of liability, 
defendants would have no incentive to consent to judgment and this 
element of compromise would be destroyed. The consent decree would 
thus as a practical matter be eliminated as an antitrust enforcement 
tool, despite Congress' directive that it be preserved.

United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 151 
(D.D.C. 1982), aff'd sub nom. Maryland  v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 
(1983) (Mem.).
    Moreover, the entry of a governmental antitrust decree forecloses 
no private party from seeking and obtaining appropriate antitrust 
remedies. Defendants will remain liable for any illegal acts, and any 
private party may challenge such conduct if and when appropriate. The 
issue before the Court in this case is limited to whether entry of this 
particular proposed Final Judgment, agreed to by the parties as 
settlement of this case, is in the public interest.
    Further, the Tunney Act does not contemplate judicial reevaluation 
of the wisdom of the government's determination of which violations to 
allege in the Complaint. The government's decision not to bring a 
particular case on the facts and law before it at a particular time, 
like any other decision not to prosecute, ``involves a complicated 
balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [the 
government's] expertise.'' Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). 
Thus, the Court may not look beyond the Complaint ``to evaluate claims 
that the government did not make and to inquire as to why they were not 
made.'' Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459 (emphasis in original); see also 
Associated Milk Producers, 534 F.2d at 117-18.
    Finally, the government has wide discretion within the reaches of 
the public interest to resolve potential litigation. E.g., Western 
Elec. Co., 993 F.2d 1572; AT&T, 552 F. Supp. at 151. The Supreme Court 
has recognized that a government antitrust consent decree is a contract 
between the parties to settle their disputes and differences, United 
States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 235-38 (1975); 
United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-82 (1971), and 
``normally embodies a compromise; in exchange for the saving of cost 
and elimination of risk, the parties each give up something they might 
have won had they proceeded with the litigation.'' Armour, 402 U.S. at 
681. This Judgment has the virtue of bringing the public certain 
benefits and protection without the uncertainty and expense of 
protracted litigation. Armour, 402 U.S. at 681; Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 
1459.

IV. Conclusion

    After careful consideration of these comments, the United States 
concludes that entry of the proposed Final Judgment will provide an 
effective and appropriate remedy for the antitrust violation alleged in 
the Complaint and is in the public interest. The United States will 
therefore move the Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment after the 
public comments and this Response have been published in the Federal 
Register, as 15 U.S.C. Sec. 16(d) requires.

    Dated: October 16, 1996.
      Respectfully submitted,
John W. Van Lonkhuyzen,
Barry L. Creech (D.C. Bar # 421070),
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 1401 H 
Street, N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C. 20530, Tel: 202/307-0001.

Certificate of Service

    On October 16, 1996, I caused a copy of the United States' Response 
to Public Comments relating to the Proposed Final Judgment (with the 
comments) to be served by facsimile and first-class mail upon 
defendants in this action. A courtesy copy (without the comments) will 
be mailed to each commentor as soon as practicable.
Barry L. Creech


            Appendix--Index of Public Comments and Responses            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Comment                              Response           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Mr. and Mrs. Barry Berkal...........  II.D, II.G                     
2. Charles Peter Pinkham...............  II.G.                          
3. Beth Lincoln........................  II.A                           
4. Dr. Theodore Goldberg...............  II.G                           
5. Charlotte Emmel.....................  II.G                           
6. Evelyn Whelton......................  II.G                           
7. Beverly Mellen......................  II.G                           
8. Lawrence Markey.....................  II.D, II.G                     
9. Gary P. Farmer......................  II.E, II.G                     
10. Mr. and Mrs. Bradford L. Boynton...  II.G                           
11. Bill Glenn.........................  II.F                           
12. Herbert H. Whittemore..............  II.B, II.E, II.G               
13. Mr. and Mrs. Bartram W. Bumsted....  II.D, II.G                     
14. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Check.........  II.D, II.E, II.G               
15. John E. Hogan......................  II.E, II.G                     
16. Lawrence Fouraker, Ph.D............  II.G                           
17. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas O'Connor.......  II.D, II.G                     
18. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Brissman....  II.G                           
19. Harold C. Fisher...................  II.D, II.G                     
20. Professor Stephen F. Ross            Not Applicable.                
 (withdrawn by commenter).                                              
21. Bruce Todd.........................  II.D, II.G                     
22. John D. Krebs......................  II.C, II.E, II.G               
23. Richard J. Fraser..................  II.E, II.G                     
24. Stanley P. Wilson..................  II.G                           
25. Joseph C. Webb.....................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
26. Dan Robinson.......................  II.B, II.E, II.G               
27. Peter B. Ward......................  II.G                           
28. Dick Smith.........................  II.G                           
29. Robert L. Johnson..................  II.G                           
30. Robert M. Weiss....................  II.D, II.G                     
31. Mr. and Mrs. Robert McManus........  II.G                           
32. Harry Stead........................  II.B, II.G                     
33. Sandra W. Dahl.....................  II.B, II.D, II.G               
34. Robert C. Peterson.................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
35. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Anthony.......  II.G                           
36. Miriam Regan.......................  II.G                           
37. John J. Reilly, Jr.................  II.G                           
38. Jennifer K. Savoie.................  II.G                           
39. Frank Murphy.......................  II.G                           
40. Jean M. Lees.......................  II.G                           
41. David S. Urey......................  II.C, II.D, II.G               
42. Thomas A. Mulkern..................  II.G                           
43. Richard F. Surrete.................  II.E, II.F, II.G               
44. Ronald K. Moore....................  II.D                           
45. Capt. David E. Bartlett............  II.F                           
46. Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Fisher......  II.G                           
47. Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. McDaniel....  II.D, II.E, II.G               
48. Gilbert G. Mahau...................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
49. Robert and Joan Billings...........  II.D, II.E, II.G               
50. David A. Pope......................  II.D, II.G,                    
51. Janet Cooper.......................  II.G                           
52. Jeff Barley........................  II.G                           

[[Page 56002]]

                                                                        
53. Robert S. Morrell..................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
54. Roy A. Lundquist...................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
55. Mr. and Mrs. Richard O. Pinkham....  II.D, II.E, II.G               
56. Cynthia A. Feltch..................  II.B, II.D, II.G               
57. Harold Berk........................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
58. Bob Kyle...........................  II.E, II.G                     
59. James R. Lane......................  II.G                           
60. William J. Denning.................  II.G                           
61. T.M. Egbert, Jr....................  II.E, II.G,                    
62. Henry DiRico.......................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
63. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Pereira..........  II.G                           
64. Richard F. Hickey..................  II.C, II.D, II.G               
65. Miriam Regan.......................  II.G                           
66. Sally Hindson......................  II.G                           
67. Dennis J. Holland..................  II.A                           
68. George J.R. Sauer..................  II.G                           
69. John C. Conniff....................  II.G                           
70. Charles Morse, Jr..................  II.D, II.G                     
71. Jack B. Middleton..................  II.D, II.G                     
72. Robert E. Adair....................  II.D, II.E, II.G               
73. William D. Quinn...................  II.A                           
74. Calvin J. Coleman..................  II.G                           
75. David S. Urey......................  II.E                           
76. Maryellen LaRoche..................  II.A                           
77. Cynthia B. Briggs..................  II.B, II.E, II.G               
78. James H. Hastings..................  II.D                           
79. John B. Pepper.....................  II.D, II.G                     
80. Priscilla Morse....................  II.D, II.G                     
81. Peter B. Edwards...................  II.D, II.G                     
82. David Peterson.....................  II.B, II.G                     
83. Miriam L. Regan....................  II.G                           
84. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fisher.........  II.E, II.G                     
85. Christropher J. Cote...............  II.D, II.G                     
86. Mr. and Mrs. Ronald F. Cote........  II.D, II.G                     
87. Douglas C. Albert..................  II.G                           
88. Conrad Briggs......................  II.G                           
89. Richard A. Ware....................  II.B, II.D, II.G               
90. Stephen P. Camuso..................  II.G                           
91. Dr. Alfred C. Peters...............  II.G                           
92. Joan M. Moeltner...................  II.G                           
93. Fred C. Anderson...................  II.E, II.G                     
94. Ronald and Pamela Barber...........  II.G                           
95. Honorable William E. Williams, Jr..  II.G                           
96. Mr. A.O. Lucy......................  II.G                           
97. Richard M. Chrenko.................  II.A                           
98. ``Conway Report''..................  II.A, II.B, II.C, II.D, II.E,  
                                          II.F, II.G                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments

1. Mr. and Mrs. Barry Berkal, 1000 Paradise Road, PHR-West, 
Swampscott, MA 01907
2. Charles Peter Pinkham, P.O. Box 543, Main Street, North Conway, 
NH 03860
3. Beth Lincoln, Box 119, Bartlett, NH 03812
4. Dr. Theodore Goldberg, Box 283, North Conway, NH 03860
5. Charlotte Emmel, P.O. Box 117, Madison, NH 03849
6. Evelyn Whelton, P.O. Box 176, Madison, NH 03849
7. Beverly Mellen, P.O. Box 484, Intervale, NH 03845
8. Lawrence Markey, 66 Mountainvale Village, Center Conway, NH 03813
9. Gary P. Farmer, P.O. Box 56, Kearsarge, NH 03860
10. Mr. and Mrs. Bradford L. Boynton, Shapleigh House, Box 236, 
Jackson, NH 03846
11. Bill Glenn, P.O. Box 310, North Conway, NH 03860
12. Herbert H. Whittemore, P.O. Box 204, Intervale, NH 03845
13. Mr. and Mrs. Bartram W. Bumsted, The Bumsted Agency, Box 1850, 
Conway, NH 03818
14. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Check, Country Cabinets, etc., 95 East 
Conway Road, Box 3240, North Conway, NH 03860
15. John E. Hogan, P.O. Box 488, Intervale, NH 03845
16. Lawrence Fouraker, Ph.D., P.O. Box 726, Intervale, NH 03845
17. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas O'Connor, RR1 Box 216, Albany, NH 03818
18. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Brissman, P.O. Box 1085, Glen, NH 03838
19. Harold C. Fisher, Loon Watch Point, Box 1187, Conway, NH 03818
20. Stephen F. Ross (withdrawn by commenter), Professor of Law, 
University of Illinois, College of Law, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue, 
Champaign, IL 61829
21. Bruce Todd, P.O. Box 249, Bartlett, NH 03812
22. John D. Krebs, Planning & Economic Development Director, Town of 
Conway, P.O. Box 70, Center Conway, NH 03813-0070
23. Richard J. Fraser, 3 Applewood Lane, Franklin, MA 02038
24. Stanley P. Wilson, P.O. Box 328, Intervale, NH 03845
25. Joseph C. Webb, P.O. Box 2153, North Conway, NH 03860
26. Dan Robinson, 526 Ocean House Rd., Cape Elizabeth, ME 04107
27. Peter B. Ward, 60 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944
28. Dick Smith, P.O. Box 300, Crestwood Drive, North Conway, NH 
03860
29. Robert L. Johnson, Robert L. Johnson, CPA & Associate, Route 
16A, RR1, Box 6, Intervale, NH 03845-9503
30. Robert M. Weiss, P.O. Box 680, Route 302, North Conway, NH 
03860-0680
31. Mr. and Mrs. Robert McManus, P.O. Box 516, Jackson, NH 03846
32. Harry Stead, 7 Glen Ellis Road, Glen, NH 03838-1268
33. Sandra W. Dahl, P.O. Box 789, Glen, NH 03838
34. Robert C. Peterson, Box 473, Glen, NH 03838
35. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Anthony, 3 Concannon Rd., Kingston, NH 
03848
36. Miriam Regan, P.O. Box 345, Intervale, NH 03845
37. John J. Reilly, Jr., Vice President, College Advancement, Saint 
Anselm College, 100 Saint Anselm Drive, Manchester, NH 03102-1310
38. Jennifer K. Savoie, P.O. Box 715, 17 Skyline Drive, Intervale, 
NH 03845
39. Frank Murphy, 1 Yellow Brick Road, North Conway, NH 03860
40. Jean M. Lees, P.O. Box 364, North Conway, NH 03860
41. David S. Urey, Tech Works, 15 Kancamagas Estates, P.O. Box 337, 
Conway, NH 03818
42. Thomas A. Mulkern, 4 Cortland Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940
43. Richard F. Surrete, P.O. Box 31, Freedom, NH 03836
44. Ronald K. Moore, P.O. Box 349, Chocorua, NH 03817-0349
45. Capt. David E. Bartlett, P.O. Box 1044, North Conway, NH 03860
46. Mr. and Mrs. Robert M. Fisher, 615 Potter Road, Center Conway, 
NH 03813
47. Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. McDaniel, 19 Belleview Ave., Marlboro, MA 
01752
48. Gilbert G. Mahau, P.O. Box 278, Kearsarge, NH 03847
49. Robert and Joan Billings, P.O. Box 126, Jackson, NH 03846
50. David A. Pope, Box 120, Kearsarge, NH 03847
51. Janet Cooper, 45 Plainfield St., Waban, MA 02168
52. Jeff Barley, no address given
53. Robert S. Morrell, Storyland, P.O. Box 1776, Glen, NH 03838
54. Roy A. Lundquist, 1 Wildflower Trail, Village at Kearsage, 
Kearsarge, NH 03847-0196
55. Mr. and Mrs. Richard O. Pinkham, 44 Powers Road, Concord, MA 
01742
56. Cynthia A. Feltch, P.O. Box 40, Bartlett, NH 03812
57. Harold Berk, Signature Breads, 300 Middlesex Avenue, Medford, MA 
02155
58. Bob Kyle, Bartlett, NH 03812
59. James R. Lane, P.O. Box 485, Jackson, NH 03846
60. William J. Denning, P.O. Box 704, Intervale, NH 03845
61. T.M. Egbert, Jr., P.O. Box 448, Glen, NH 03808
62. Henry DiRico, 774 Norfolk Street, Mansfield, MA 02048
63. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Pereira, 392 Brenda Lane, Franklin, MA 02038
64. Richard F. Hickey, 9 Metcommet Road, Scituate, MA 02066
65. Miriam Regan, P.O. Box 345, Intervale, NH 03845
66. Sally Hindson, 1640 Plaintiff Pike, Cranston, RI 02920-1320
67. Dennis J. Holland, Marcia A. Burchstead, 35 Skyline Drive, P.O. 
Box 826, Intervale, NH 03845
68. George J.R. Sauer, 45 Fuller Street, Dedham, MA 02026
69. John C. Conniff, 157 Pleasantview Avenue, Longmeadow, MA 01106
70. Charles Morse, Jr., 19 Green Street, Newbury, MA 01951
71. Jack B. Middleton, McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Nine 
Hundred Elm Street, P.O. Box 326, Manchester, NH 03105-0326
72. Robert E. Adair, 150 Old Westside Road, North Conway, NH 03860
73. William D. Quinn, P.O. Box 21, Madison, NH 03849
74. Calvin J. Coleman, Alvin J. Coleman & Son, Inc., RR 1, Box 120, 
Route 16, Conway, NH 03818
75. David S. Urey, TechWorks, 15 Kancamagus Estates, P.O. Box 337, 
Conway, NH 03818
76. Maryellen LaRoche, P.O. Box 110, 277 Stark Rd., Conway, NH 03818

[[Page 56003]]

77. Cynthia B. Briggs, Locust Hill, P.O. Box 427, North Conway, NH 
03860
78. James H. Hastings, 55 Stetson Street, Bradford, MA 01835
79. John B. Pepper, P.O. Box X, Jackson, NH 03846
80. Priscilla Morse, 19 Green St., Newbury, MA 01951
81. Peter B. Edwards, P.O. Box 1915, North Conway, NH 03860
82. David Peterson, Glass Graphics, Inc., P.O. Box 1199, 56 Pleasant 
Street, Conway, NH 03818
83. Miriam L. Regan, Box 345, Intervale, NH 03845
84. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Fisher, 615 Potter Road, Center Conway, NH 
03813
85. Christopher J. Cote, 29 Essex Street, Lowell, MA 01850
86. Mr. and Mrs. Ronald F. Cote, 29 Essex Street, Lowell, MA 01850
87. Douglas C. Albert, President, Albert Farms/Maine Turf Company, 
RR 1, Box 103, Fryeburg, ME 04037
88. Conrad Briggs, Locust Hill, Box 427, 267 Kearsarge Road, North 
Conway, NH 03860
89. Richard A. Ware, Hurricane Mtn. Farmhouse, P.O. Box 310, 
Intervale, NH 03845
90. Stephen P. Camuso, 14 Cranmore Circle, North Conway, NH 03818
91. Dr. Alfred C. Peters, Topnotch, P.O. Box 536, Glen, NH 03838
92. Joan M. Moeltner, National Federation of Independent Business, 
600 Maryland Avenue S.W., Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20024
93. Fred C. Anderson, General Manager/CEO, New Hampshire Electric 
Cooperative, Inc., RR#4, Box 2100, Tenney Mountain Highway, 
Plymouth, NH 03264-9420
94. Ronald and Pamela Barber, 364 Thompson Road, North Conway, NH 
03860
95. Honorable William E. Williams, Jr., House of Representatives, 
State of New Hampshire, Committee on Resources, Recreation and 
Development, State House, Concord, New Hampshire 03301
96. Mr. A.O. Lucy, Executive Director, Mount Washington Valley 
Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau, P.O. Box 2300, North Conway, 
NH 03860
97. Richard M. Chrenko, P.O. 913, West Side Road, Glen, NH 03838-
0913
98. ``Conway Report'', Mt. Washington Valley/Mt. Cranmore Task 
Force, James B. Somerville, Chairman, Town of Conway, P.O. Box 70, 
Center Conway, NH 03813-0073

The Berkals

June 18, 1996.
Anne K. Bingaman,
U.S. Assistant Attorney General, Anti-Trust Division, Justice 
Department, Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Madam: We sincerely hope that you do not force America 
Skiing to sell Mt. Cranmore.
    We have been skiing there for well over twenty years, and no 
other owner has done as much to improve the skiing at this area. We 
were absolutely delighted with the improvements made last year. The 
interchangeable ticket between Attitash and Cranmore is a great draw 
for tourists. I trust that you are aware that Mt. Cranmore was for 
sale for some time before it was purchased by LBO.
    This section of New Hampshire has other areas which provide 
competition within a reasonable driving distance, such as Black 
Mountain, Wildcat Mountain, Bretton Woods, Loon, King Pine and 
Shawnee Peak, all within a fifteen to forty-five minute drive.
    We were all justifiably enthused when LBO Resort Enterprises 
bought Mt. Cranmore, and we trust that the decision to force the 
corporation to dispose of Mt. Cranmore will not be enforced, as we 
feel it is not in the best interest of the public or the community.

      Yours very truly,
Betty Berkal, etc.

Pinkham Real Estate

June 18, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I was horrified to hear the news that Les 
Otten has been ordered to sell Cranmore Mountain Ski Area. Cranmore 
is the life blood of our economy here in North Conway and the 
keystone to Mt. Washington Valley. It is the thread by which North 
Conway's economic health hangs. As a ski area, it is completely 
incapable of standing alone in today's ski market. Past performance 
has already proven that. Forcing it to do so again means disaster, 
not just for Cranmore, but for this town.
    Cranmore isn't a Fleet Bank or Bank of Boston that apparently 
can merge without protest. It isn't even a Stowe or a Sugarbush, or 
indeed a Waterville Valley among ski areas. It's a little hill with 
wide slopes and pleasant trails and a verticle drop that poses no 
competitive threat to ski areas such as these. However, it happens 
to be located right in North Conway village, which feels its every 
economic shiver. For the past seven years this village has been 
freezing.
    After a year of LBO's management, when Cranmore and North Conway 
finally felt a resurgence of business, what kind of unconscionable 
bureaucracy is this that would shove this unassuming little business 
back out in the cold and imperil the lives and jobs of an entire 
town? If it is fear of the merged firm raising prices, don't they 
realize Cranmore as an independent business would have to raise 
prices to afford the kind of continuing capital investment, 
management and marketing dollars necessary to offer skiers a 
competitive product? A bit of history may serve to illustrate what 
this business means to the town.
    Cranmore was founded in the late 1930s by Harvey Gibson, a local 
boy who had made good, not to show a profit, but to return something 
to his home town. During the three decades that followed--as with 
most businesses heavily dependent on the weather--it was never a big 
money maker, but it was able to pay its bills. However, in 1970 a 
snow drought forced it to its knees. Skiers left for other areas 
that had had the dollars for snow-making, or the size and altitude 
not to require it. The town responded. Over 100 people, most from 
this little village of 2,500, put down hard earned dollars to enable 
the mountain to buy snow-making equipment. The Manchester Union 
Leader headlined it as a town raising itself by its own bootstraps. 
I was owner/operator of North Conway's Eastern Slope Inn at the 
time, and I've never seen a community so aware of the importance of 
one business to the economic future of all.
    Since then, ski areas have required bigger and bigger 
investments to stay competitive: partial snow making had to be 
extended to 100% cover; T Bars had to become chair lifts; chair 
lifts have had to become detachable quads; base stations--like the 
historic one at Cranmore--have had to be modernized, and louder 
marketing voices are needed to meet the increasing competition from 
inexpensive package plans to the big areas in the Rockies and the 
Alps. Nowhere is the major investment required by a business more 
obvious and open to the buying public than in a ski area, where a 
skier can tell within minutes whether or not its product is 
competitive.
    During recent years, Cranmore has been owned by people who just 
wanted to say they owned a ski area. Like a yacht, if you had to ask 
how much it cost, you couldn't afford it. Today's costs have removed 
ski areas from the toy department. Without the assistance of a 
larger organization, to take advantage of economy of scale, Cranmore 
is doomed. And so is the village and town around it.
    This past year of LBO ownership has rejuvenated our local 
economy. From 1990 to 1993 I was President of the Mt. Washington 
Valley Chamber of Commerce, which doubles as our regional marketing 
organization. For most of that period Cranmore existed at the 
pleasure of the banks, as did much of the town. Though blessed with 
a historically faithful clientele, skiers could no longer resist the 
lure of areas with bigger, faster and more modern equipment. LBO 
changed that. In my real estate business I have been able to observe 
the LBO effect perhaps more closely than most. I've seen people 
buying here this year with confidence again in Cranmore's future. 
And North Conway's. That can all end if this decision is allowed to 
stand.
    The decision to make LBO divest of Cranmore must have been made 
solely by mathematics: LBO has such and such percentage of the 
market, therefore it must be harmful to the ski industry and/or 
skiers. Believe me when I say, should the ruling be enforced, a 
whole town will suffer.
    I would ask those that made the ruling visit the elephants of 
the American and Canadian skiing west and then take a look at the 
little mouse-like knoll we call Cranmore.

      Sincerely,
Charles Peter Pinkham.
cc: Congressman Bill Zeliff

Beth C. Lincoln

June 21, 1996.
    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am very much in favor of the Justice 
Department's action to force the sale of Mt. Cranmore by Les Otten.
    LBO is only interested in profit, and apparently has no concern 
for people or the community. He has clearly demonstrated

[[Page 56004]]

this, and his lack of integrity, by his actions at Athtash-Bear 
Peak. He attempts to manipulate the community by deceit and smooth 
talking. He charges premium prices and pays almost minimum wages (as 
well as no benefits, and hour by hour layoffs).
    I am a very private person, & do not wish my name used publicly. 
However, I did wish to express my approval of your action.

      Sincerely,
Beth C. Lincoln,
Box 119, Bartlett, NH 03812, 603-374-6033

Dr. Theodore Goldberg

June 21, 1996.
    Dear Mr. Conrath: I have not seen or felt such enthusiasm either 
on Mt. Cranmore or in the Valley as was shown this past winter under 
Les Otten's ownership.
    My children & grandchildren learned to ski on Cranmore & we have 
been dismayed at the determination over the past 15 years.
    Since the Otten [mgmt] purchases the mountain a feeling of 
revitalization has taken hold in the entire valley. If he is not 
allowed to continue this progress the area will revert to lethargy.

      Sincerely,
Dr. Theodore Goldberg,
Box 283, N. Conway, NH 03860

Charlotte Emmel

June 21, 1996.
    Dear Mr. Conrath: This is to strongly urge that the Justice 
Dept. reconsider its decision to force Les Otten of LBO Enterprises 
to divest itself of Cranmore Mt. before SKI Limited can be acquired.
    This news was devastating to this area (Mt. Washington Valley 
where Cranmore is located in North Conway). For years Cranmore has 
been steadily going down hill because the different owners simply 
did not have the funds to improve the mountain to make it 
competitive. This has cost many jobs and has had an effect on the 
tourist industry which the area relies on. When LBO purchased 
Cranmore last year, I believe everyone, without exception, was 
overjoyed--residents of the area and skier visitors alike. He pumped 
money into it and everyone was very excited about the plans he had 
to further develop the mountain. You may be delivering a death blow 
to the mountain if you carry through on forcing LBO to divest itself 
of Cranmore--and I beg you to reconsider.

      Sincerely,
Charlotte Emmel

Evelyn Whelton

June 21, 1996.
Craig W Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H St., NW., Washington DC 20530

Re: Divesting, Cranmore Mountain, North Conway, NH

    You are dealing with a ski resort in New Hampshire, that was 
dying and bringing the town down with it. We finally found someone 
that was willing to make a commitment to all of us and make this the 
first rate ski area it used to be.
    The bottom line here is this:

The future of the New Hampshire Ski industry
The future of Mt. Washington Valley
The future of all who live here and struggle to make a living

    Please look this over again and I am sure you will recognize 
that as a small community we can only benefit letting LBO keep 
Cranmore Mountain.

      Thank you,
Evelyn Whelton,
PO Box 176, Madison, NH 03849.

Beverly Mellen

June 21, 1996.
Craig W Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H St., NW., Washington, DC 20530

Re: Divesting, Cranmore Mountain, North Conway, NH

    You are dealing with a ski resort in New Hampshire, that was 
dying and bringing the town down with it. We finally found someone 
that was willing to make a commitment to all of us and make this the 
first rate ski area it used to be.
    The bottom line here is this:

The future of the New Hampshire Ski industry
The future of Mt. Washington Valley
The future of all who live here and struggle to make a living

    Please look this over again and I am sure you will recognize 
that as a small community we can only benefit by letting LBO keep 
Cranmore Mountain.

      Thank you,
Beverly Mellen,
PO Box 484, Intervale, NH 03845.

Lawrence Markey

June 21, 1993.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Sir: I am writing regarding the Justice Department's 
decision to require the LOB holdings to sell the Cranmore Ski areas 
in North Conway, NH particularly. The past year of ownership, LOB 
has not only turned around the flagging ski area but has done a 
great deal for the Mount Washington Valley area. To require the sale 
of this area by a courageous true entrepreneur would be disastrous 
for the community. He has plans far beyond the ski area that can 
only benefit this area. Reading about this action I have noted that 
currently LOB owns a mere 25% of the Northeast ski industry and 6% 
of the national ski industry. This hardly constitutes a monopoly.
    I desperately ask that you reconsider the demanded sale of Mount 
Cranmore ski area. I am a skier and resident of the Mount Washington 
Valley area and fully support what LBO has planned for this area.
    Please Reconsider and Reverse Your Decision.
Lawrence Markey
ccs: Rep. Bill Zeliff
Sen. Judd Gregg
Sen. Robert Smith

Gary P. Farmer

June 21, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing to ask your assistance in 
reversing the senseless bureaucratic decision by the U.S. Department 
of Justice forcing the divestiture of Cranmore Mountain by LBO 
Enterprises.
    As a neighbor to Cranmore and long time skier of New Hampshire 
mountains including others owned or to be owned by LBO, I do not 
believe the Antitrust Division understands the status of the ski 
industry in New Hampshire nor the decline of Cranmore Mountain until 
it was purchased by LBO this past ski season.
    I do appreciate the mission of the Antitrust Division and its 
role in maintaining completion and protecting the consumer, but this 
is a case where allowing the consolidation to proceed will do just 
that.
    I say this because economies of scale in the ski industry are 
necessary to reduce overall operating costs in an industry where 
skyrocketing ticket prices in recent years have forced many families 
to give up this recreational opportunity.
    Cranmore is unique. It's place in history has been documented 
but it's importance to the local economy is less well known. As a 
local businessman in North Conway, I can assure you that the decline 
of Cranmore had a significant impact on State tax revenues and local 
incomes. This past year, with the substantial investments made by 
LBO in Cranmore, this situation has turned around. The business 
community showed their enthusiasm for and confidence in LBO by 
planning additional economic expansion. This has been destroyed by 
the Justice Department's proposed consent order.
    I do not believe the Antitrust Division understands that New 
Hampshire ski areas compete regionally within the state namely the 
Sunapee, Franconia and Mt. Washington Valley regions. Geographic 
distances and natural obstructions define these regions. Therefore 
skiers choose a region first then a ski area within that region. If 
Justice understood this, then they would know that the number of 
areas owned by American Ski Company (LBO) only affects the economies 
of scale and marketability of the areas, it does not diminish 
competition. The exception would be owning multiple areas within the 
same region. This does occur since Attitash and Crandmore are within 
Mt Washington Valley.
    However, LBO owned both there areas one season prior to the 
merger and all areas within the region flourished. Wildcat Mountain 
reported a 30% increase in skier visits, Black Mountain successfully 
emerged from bankruptcy and for the first time in a long time, all 
areas in the region were profitable. The reason is that LBO has 
breathed new life with the region because of their investments in, 
marketing of, and commitment to the Valley. These areas do not 
compete on price. Each has established

[[Page 56005]]

its own niche based on terrain, amenities, teaching techniques and 
size. Each has successfully marketed itself by aiming at its niche 
demographics.
    The bottom line is that the Department of Justice does not 
understand the ski business in New Hampshire and I am asking that 
you review the Consent Order and avoid making a mistake which will 
have an adverse affect on the consumer and the general economy of 
the region.
    Thank you for your consideration. If you would like to discuss 
this further please feel free to contact me at the above address.

        Very truly yours,
Gary P. Farmer
cc: Congressman Bill Zeliff
Senator Judd Gregg
Senator Bob Smith

Mrs. Bradford Lewis Boynton

June 21, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Anti-Trust Div., US D.O.J., 1401 H St 
N.W., Washington DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: We were horrified to read our local papers 
that the Justice Dept. is forcing L.B.O. to sell Cranmore Mt., a ski 
resort in our village of No. Conway, so they have demanded that to 
our several if not many Ski Resorts or Areas is a monopoly. Ski 
business is not AT&T or any other large enterprize. It is a highly 
expensive recreational operation of making, snow trails and skiers, 
and getting people to use your mountain. It does not depend upon a 
monopoly of areas but on incredible know-how. In the case of 
Cranmore Mt., never has it been such excellent skiing as this year 
under LBO and the little town of North Conway would be a winter 
ghost town without Les Otten. He is a skier. He knows the ski area 
business. Please, please rescind this foolish order of having to 
sell out. We have skied at Cranmore since it opened in 1939 and we 
know how badly off Cranmore Mt. got before Les Otten put his know 
how to this area.

        Sincerely,
Carol J. Boynton
Bradford L. Boynton

Bill Glenn

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, AntiTrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Re: Justice v. LBO Enterprises

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It does not help competitiveness in the skiing 
industry to force LBO to give up their two weakest properties. 
Sunday River and Killington would be far better choices. LBO should 
be required to keep Cranmore for ten years.
    There is a philosophy that says if one is going to be inspected, 
provide something pleasant for the inspector to find so he will not 
discover an unpleasant something else. Using this philosophy, LBO 
could have acquired Cranmore just to have something to give up to 
the Justice Department.

        Sincerely yours,
Bill Glenn

Herbert H. Whittemore

June 21, 1996.
The Honorable Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing to object in the strongest 
possible way to your decision requiring Mr. Leslie B. Otten's LBO 
Enterprises to divest Cranmore Mountain Ski Area in North Conway, 
N.H., and Waterville Valley Ski Area in Waterville Valley, N.H., in 
order to merge with SKI Limited.
    I disagree with your apparent premise that Mr. Otten, by owning 
three ski areas in New Hampshire, could monopolize ski ticket prices 
or packages, harming skiers or competing ski areas.
    I know you and your staff are concerned with the common good of 
all parties: The skiers of New England, other ski areas, as well as 
Mr. Otten and his employees. And I thank you for that!
    But I contend that allowing Mr. Otten to retain control of 
Cranmore and Waterville is crucial to skiers, to the economy of the 
Mount Washington Valley, Conway, N.H., and Waterville, N.H.
    As you may know, Cranmore was in bankruptcy or losing money for 
the better part of a decade before Mr. Otten took over and turned 
the area around with a huge investment in lift, snowmaking and other 
equipment. Thanks to him, the mountain is recovering, skiers had a 
great year, and valley communities benefited greatly. I must point 
out that Cranmore is an economic linchpin and recreational jewel in 
Conway, N.H.
    Mr. Otten rescued Cranmore, as he did Attitash Ski Area in 
neighboring Bartlett, N.H. I believe that Mr. Otten is good for 
skiing--no, make that great for skiing and for skiers!
    That conclusion is based on 41 years of skiing; I first strapped 
on skis in 1954 at Cranmore and I've been going downhill ever since. 
I am a retired newspaper editor and wrote twice-weekly winter ski 
columns for the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune for 17 years.
    I recall interviewing Mr. Otten in 1980 for a column when he 
bought and began developing Sunday River Ski Area in Maine. Then, it 
was a minuscule area. Today, it is simply the best; a jewel in the 
Maine economy; a wonderful playground for skiers.
    In that 1980 interview, Mr. Otten laid out a projection of what 
he hoped to do with Sunday River. I went away from that interview 
trying to keep my objectivity intact, but torn between wondering 
whether Mr. Otten was a ski visionary or just spouting pipe dreams.
    Well, let me tell you that those plans for Sunday River have all 
come true, and much, much more!
    Quite simply, I believe Mr. Otten is the most exciting and best 
thing that I have witnessed in my 41 years of skiing.
    It would be a sad and harmful thing, indeed, to deny Cranmore 
and Waterville their opportunity to be part of Mr. Otten's dynamic 
plans for skiing. And it will most certainly harm the economies of 
their communities and the many employees of the two areas because, 
without Mr. Otten, they are likely to slide back into bankruptcy.
    It has been my observation that Mr. Otten's way of doing 
business is NOT financially harmful to the price of lift tickets. 
His way of doing business is simply better than that of other areas. 
He makes lots of snow, keeps making it to improve conditions, runs 
his areas with great care and concern.
    Skiing, by its very nature, is an expensive sport. A skier's 
personal equipment is costly. A well-equipped skier can be wearing 
anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 in gear. So, too, are lodging, meals, 
and transportation. The point I am trying to make is that the price 
of a lift ticket is a relatively small part of the individual 
skier's cost.
    It is doubtful, in my mind, that, with three ski areas in New 
Hampshire, Mr. Otten could monopolize the ski industry in the 
Granite State. In fact, I believe that by depriving him of the right 
to run Cranmore and Waterville, you will be hurting the economy of 
New Hampshire (where tourism is the Number 2 industry). You will be 
hurting skiers, because, clearly, no one provides better skiing 
conditions than Mr. Otten.
    That is one skier's view of the situation. I hope that by 
sharing it with you, you may reconsider your earlier action and 
change your position regarding divestiture. I thank you for your 
patience in considering these remarks.
    I should say that I have no connection with LBO Enterprises or 
SKI Limited. I am simply a retired newsman living in the Mount 
Washington Valley and loving the skiing at Attitash Bear Peak 
Cranmore and Sunday River. And I am thankful for brilliant men like 
Mr. Otten and Mr. Phil Gravink, the masterful CEO of Attitash Bear 
Peak Cranmore. And that is why I write.

    Sincerely,
Herbert H. Whittemore,
P.O. Box 204, Intervale, N.H. 03845.

The Bumsted Agency

June 21, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Re: Mount Cranmore Ski Area, North Conway, NH 03860.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I was very upset to hear that the Justice 
Department was requiring LOB Enterprises to divest itself of 
Cranmore and Waterville Valley.
    As a resident of Kearsarge (a suburb of North Conway) I am 
primarily concerned with Mount Cranmore. This mountain has been 
through a great deal since I moved here in 1973. When Les Otten 
purchased it and started to pour money into it, it seemed that at 
last its troubles were over.
    It makes little sense to me to prohibit LBO from owning Cranmore 
because of the possibility of lack of competition. We have a number 
of other ski areas in the Valley should Mr. Otten elect to make his 
prices non-competitive. Wildcat, Black Mountain, and King Pine all 
offer a variety of skiing for all abilities.

[[Page 56006]]

    Although I can see the need for monitoring corporations which 
supply goods to the public to keep competition alive, I feel that, 
in this case, which covers a recreational situation, the Justice 
Department has over-stepped its bounds.

        Sincerely yours,
Bartram W. Bumsted

Country Cabinets, etc.

June 21, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: The forced divestiture of LBO's ownership of 
Mt. Cranmore and Waterville Valley as a condition required by the 
DOJ for it to allow the merger of LBO Enterprises and S-K-I Ltd. has 
the potential of having a very negative impact on our town and its 
business climate.
    The analysis of the situation seems to be flawed in the 
assumption that LBO would have a monopoly thus eliminating a 
competitive environment for the consumer. LBO knows, however, that 
it is dealing with a savvy consumer and that charges can be only 
what the market will bear. Although LBO currently owns Attitash/Bear 
Peak/Cranmore, the daily ski rates are different at each mountain. 
Each area has different amenities that dictate charges accordingly. 
There are also other mountains in the immediate area which offer 
alternatives of price as well as types of skiing and snowboarding 
experiences.
    Being business owners in North Conway and members of many 
organizations including the Mount Washington Valley Chamber of 
Commerce, we can attest to the fact that LBO is very community 
minded and has added greatly to the marketing of our ``Valley''. We 
know that LBO is strong and that Cranmore will continue to thrive 
under its involvement. Cranmore is a ski area that had no investment 
for years and was deteriorating. Finally, along came LBO willing to 
work hard and put money into making it a first-rate ski area! To 
have another entity take over such an important facet in our town is 
risky. We know and like what we currently have!
    Lastly, we are very concerned about local jobs being affected by 
this change. Our economy is mainly dependent upon tourism and LBO's 
ability to market our area as a whole will certainly be diminished 
with it's loss of Cranmore's income. Our Chamber has suffered over 
the past 8 years due to a poor economic climate. LBO's marketing 
efforts and support of the Chamber's marketing programs has been 
much appreciated.
    Please reconsider and reverse your requirement that LBO must 
sell Mount Cranmore. Thank you for your consideration.

        Sincerely,
Richard and Joy Check
Senator Bob Smith, Senator Judd Gregg, Congressman Charlie Bass, 
Congressman Bill Zeliff.

John E. Hogan

June 22, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief Merger Task Force, U.S. Dept of Justice, Washington, D.C.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing re the recent decision re the 
merger of LBO Enterprises & Ski LTD that they must sell off Cranmore 
Ski Area in North Conway. This decision made, I'm sure, because they 
also own Attitash/Bear Peak which is also in Mt. Washington Valley 
area.
    I'm just hoping that you will give this a bit more consideration 
and possibly allow them to retain this property along with Attitash/
Bear Peak. Just a bit of history. Cranmore was the first ski area in 
Mt. Washington Valley, it is located right in the center of town; it 
is rather historic, especially to skiers, in that it had the first & 
only Skimobile to get skiers to the top; it brought Hannes Schnieder 
over from Austria to escape the Jewish situation ad he started one 
of the first ski schools in U.S. introducing his new method of 
teaching skiing. I sort of refer to it as the Lily of the Valley 
when it comes to skiing.
    Unfortunately in the past 10 or 12 years (or more) it was not 
being cared for and was running down rather badly. It finally wound 
up in the banks hands and they were doing nothing other than trying 
to run it until they found a buyer. Within a year of buying 
Attitash/Bear Peak Les Otten took over Cranmore and immediately 
started pouring money into putting in a great new lift, much work on 
trails, lodge building and snowmaking and making it once again a 
focal point in the Valley.
    He now runs two great areas in the Valley and has been benefit 
to the Valley. There is another major ski area about 20 miles from 
North Conway known as Wildcat. I understand your concern re 
competition & pricing but this is a perfect example that he is not 
out to destroy anyone. Because of the extensive advertising that LBO 
Enterprises does Wildcat benefited, as did the Valley as a whole, so 
much so that Wildcats receipts were up almost 30% this past season. 
(It helped that because of the competition they were also forced to 
finally do some upgrading to their area!) Les Otten, it seems does 
not compete by price, but rather feels it more important to give 
value for what he charges.
    Wildcat's prices are lower, especially weekdays & Sundays and 
they have 2 for 1 specials on Wednesdays. Les Otten has never tried 
to compete with that it seems. He just seems (I do not know the man 
nor have I seen him) to try to be fair. I have a lifetime pass at 
Attitash and when he took over, there was some concern that they 
would continue to be honored. It turned to be not a problem at all 
and we were even extended the right to also ski Cranmore on our 
pass, something he definitely did not have to do.
    I'm just afraid that if he is forced to sell Cranmore that it 
will once again go into a nose-dive and may wind up closing. That 
would be a terrible, terrible loss to the Valley and, from my 
viewpoint, an historic loss.
    I just don't believe that owning the two areas here puts him in 
an extraordinary competitive position. This is just a case where LBO 
Enterprises is truly good for Mt. Washington Valley and GREAT for 
Cranmore.
    I for one hope that you will reconsider your position on this 
matter. Thank you for your time in reading this letter.

        Sincerely,
John E. Hogan,
PO Box 488, Intervale, NH 03845.

Lawrence Fouraker

June 22, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: We are presently full-year residents of the 
Mount Washington Valley, New Hampshire. (Next year we will be 
weekend visitors, as I will join the faculty at Wellesley College.) 
I am writing to protest the foolish and incomprehensible antitrust 
ruling against Mr. Les Otten of LBO Enterprises. Last winter we had 
season passes that were valid at both Mr. Cranmore and Mt. Attitash/
Bear Peak. Far from being anti-competitive, it is a great boon to 
both areas to have interchangeable tickets.
    We are also far from sanguine that another owner will prove able 
to continue Les Otten's multimillion dollar investment program that 
turned Cranmore from a run-down, struggling area threatened several 
times with bankruptcy into an exciting fairly-centered tourist draw 
for the businesses in the area. Wildcat is a potential buyer, but 
they have hardly maintained equipment and facilities there, and I 
don't see how they can do so at Cranmore. Thus, your decision may 
well push a recovering ski area right in the middle of our community 
back into financial trouble and possible bankruptcy. That would 
certainly not stimulate competition. I have studied economics at the 
graduate level and am well aware of the benefits of a competitive 
marketplace. The airline industry and the telecommunications field 
are two clear examples where consumers--and the U.S. economy--have 
benefitted from the actions of your colleagues. But alpine skiing in 
New England is clearly not such a case. The many happy customers of 
Mr. Otten--and, surprisingly enough, every single employee I have 
spoken with--implore you to reverse this stupid ruling.

Lawrence Fouraker, Ph.D,
P.O. Box 726, Intervale, NH 03845.

Thomas L. & Grace N. O'Connor

June 23, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H. Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Sir: We are asking the Department of Justice to reconsider 
its recent decision in the matter of the merger LBO Industries and 
SKI Ltd. that requires LBO Enterprises to divest from its holdings 
The Cranmore Mountain Ski Area. We feel this would have a negative 
impact on the quality of skiing available in the Mount Washington 
Valley as well as on the local economy.
    Within an approximate 40 mile radius of North Conway, where 
Mount Cranmore is situated, there are seven ski areas, only two 
which would be owned by LBO Enterprises. This is surely a very 
competitive market.
    In the year of ownership under LBO Enterprises, the skiing 
improved dramatically

[[Page 56007]]

and has never been better in the previous 25 years we have skied the 
mountain. Without the financial backing available to a large and 
successful operator in the ski business we feel the viability of 
Cranmore is in jeopardy. Further improvements planned by LBO will 
not be forthcoming, the business will fail and competition will be 
reduced.

        Sincerely yours,
Thomas L. O'Connor
Grace N. O'Connor
cc: Representative William Zeliff,
Senator Robert Smith,
Senator Judd Gregg.

Arthur J. Brissman and Barbara A. Brissman

June 23, 1996.
Craig W. Contrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H. Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Chief Conrath: The 1995-1996 Ski season at Cranmore 
Mountain, No. Conway, New Hampshire was the very best skiing we have 
had for a long long time.
    The upkeep and economic worth of Mt. Cranmore had been on a 
serious decline for the past several years and now, finally, in 
1995, LBO, Les Otten, purchased the mountain and put money into it. 
Even though he has been involved for only a year now, we, the 
community, have already seen the value of commitment from somebody 
willing to make Mt. Cranmore and the Mt. Washington Valley a first-
rate ski area.
    Needless to say, we are devastated to learn that Mr. Otten has 
been instructed to divest Mt. Cranmore in order to acquire SKI 
Limited. We, among many, believe this would be a serious mistake and 
are concerned about Cranmore's future if LBO is forced to sell the 
mountain.
    It is our most urgent request that you reconsider and reevaluate 
your directive that LBO must sell Cranmore Mountain.
    The merchants, innkeepers, and all of us dedicated skiers 
believe the future growth and return of a strong economy in this 
area depend on your revised decision to allow LBO to continue with 
his plans and improvements in the Mt. Washington Valley.
    This letter is respectfully submitted and thank you for your 
attention to this matter.

        Very truly yours,
Arthur J. Brissman
Barbara A. Brissman

Harold C. Fisher

June 23, 1996.
Re: Cranmore Mtn.--LBO Holdings

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing you in regard to your decision to 
force LBO Holdings to sell Cranmore Mtn. because of the potential 
for price fixing. While I can understand this possibility to some 
extent, I think you should consider more carefully the ``big 
picture''.
    Cranmore has always been a good ski area because of its location 
near the center of town. The previous owners weren't able or willing 
to invest sufficient capital in the mountain to make it a profitable 
enterprise. Because of the limited size of the mountain, I think it 
requires a tie-in with another ski area in order to make it viable. 
LBO did this. They installed a new high speed chair lift and made 
the tickets interchangeable with Attitash, just 20 minutes away. As 
a result, business boomed last year and the valley benefited 
greatly. The point I want to make is that whatever risk may be 
involved with price fixing, I believe is overshadowed by the 
benefits to the town and valley by having Cranmore a successful ski 
area.
    Wildcat Mtn. is an excellent ski area, only about 40 minutes 
from Cranmore. King Pine and Black Mtn. are smaller ski areas 
nearby. Competition from these mountains should help to keep prices 
in line.* LBO is doing a first class job in promoting skiing in our 
area and the economic benefits are widespread. Before you definitely 
decide to force the sale, I hope you will give full consideration to 
the impact on our local economy.

        Sincerely,
Harold C. Fisher.
    *P.S. I forgot to mention Bretton Woods and Shawnee Peak are \1/
2\ hour from Cranmore.

    The letter from Professor Stephen F. Ross was withdrawn by 
commentor.
    The letter from Bruce, Patricia and Carolyn Todd was not able to be 
reprinted in the Federal Register, however, it may be inspected in 
Suite 215, U.S. Department of Justice, Legal Procedures Unit, 325 7th 
St., N.W., Washington, D.C. at (202) 514-2481 and at the Office of the 
Clerk of the United States Court for the District of Columbia.

Town of Conway

June 24, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Anti-Trust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Re: LBO/SKI Ltd Merger; Cranmore divestiture.

    Dear Craig: This letter is in reference to the forced 
divestiture of Cranmore from LBO/SKI Ltd, to be known as the 
American Ski Company, by the U.S. Justice Department. The Justice 
Department's requirement that LBO/SKI Ltd sell Cranmore as part of 
the merger of the two companies will cause a tremendous decline in 
the alpine ski industry and in the local and regional economies of 
Conway and the Mount Washington Valley.
    As the Planning & Economic Development Director for the Town of 
Conway, I can assure you that last years' purchase of Cranmore by 
LBO was met with extreme enthusiasm by the Town of Conway as well as 
the towns surrounding Conway. Understand that Cranmore is a very 
small, family oriented ski resort; the likelihood of it succeeding 
as a stand-alone resort would be slim at best. To date, LBO has 
invested in excess of four million dollars into Cranmore, and had 
plans for further expansion of both the skiing and resort amenities. 
This past years' success at Cranmore was only made possible by the 
ownership of the resort by LBO. Simply put, LBO has the means and 
the experience to make Cranmore succeed.
    Regarding the Justice Department's concern about the increase in 
ticket prices as a result of the merger, the answer to the question 
is very complicated. The merger of LBO/SKI may, in fact, cause a 
reduction in ticket prices, as there is certainly an economy of 
scale created by owning several mountains. Additionally, ticket 
prices alone may not be a true reflection of what consumers are 
getting for their money; for instance, LBO's vast expansion of 
Attitash provided a great many additional skiing opportunities while 
ticket prices rose only slightly. Lastly regarding unwarranted price 
increases; alpine skiing has been, and may always be an expensive 
form of winter recreation. If the merger of LBO/SKI results in a 
significant ticket price increase, a great number of skiers will be 
priced out of the market, an already small market, which will result 
in a decrease in company revenues. LBO has, and I believe will 
continue to attract new participants to the sport by providing a 
great product at prices which are competitive with other resorts, 
and which are competitive with other winter recreation 
opportunities.
    Please reconsider your decision to force the sale of Cranmore, 
it will devastate Conway's economy.
    Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this 
very important matter.

        Yours sincerely,
John D. Krebs,
Planning & Economic Development Director.

Richard J. Fraser

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Anti-trust Division, U.S. Dept. of 
Justice, 1401 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: With regard to the merger of S-K-I Ltd. with 
LBO Enterprises (American Skiing Corp.) I wish to register my 
objection to the Justice Dept. requirement for divestiture of the 
Waterville Valley and Cranmore ski areas as a condition for 
approval. My objection is based on the following facts:
    a. Both of these areas are most needful of major facility 
upgrades, having recently gone through bankruptcy proceedings and 
ownership changes. Each will be left to fend for themselves in a 
market that demands large capital investments, solely the domain of 
such large corporations as American Skiing, Interwest, ect.
    b. The above named divestitures (especially Waterville Valley) 
have slipped greatly in their total skier visits in the 1995-96 
season, in spite of an excellent snow year, compared to other areas 
due to the lack of upgraded facilities. It follows therefore, that 
if major capital infusion is not forthcoming to improve the skiing 
experience for the day/weekend skier, that the intent of the ruling 
will be moot, with these areas not able to provide either an 
affordable, or more important, quality skiing which is vital to this 
high risk sport.
    c. Beyond the affordable skiing factor involved in the ruling is 
the economy of the surrounding communities, still struggling with 
the real estate/economic downturn that has hit these two regions 
hard. Forcing yet another change of owners will only delay

[[Page 56008]]

needed improvements, further eroding their attractiveness to these 
very skiers that the Justice Dept. is trying to protect.
    In light of these subjects, I maintain that this decision will 
have just the opposite intended effects of providing skiers with 
competitive rates. In the ski business, it is not just cost that 
drives, but the quality experienced is every bit as important, as 
most skiers would testify. A lower cost area with sub-standard 
facilities would be a bad trade off with the likelihood of not 
having the skier return, only to have the same person travel to the 
higher ticket price area next time seeking superior facilities.
    I ask that the Justice Dept. reconsider this ruling. New England 
has lost numerous smaller affordable areas for the above reasons. 
Please do not let these areas go the way of their predecessors.
Richard J. Fraser,
3 Applewood Lane, Franklin, Ma. 02038.

Stanley P. Wilson

Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC, 20530.

Re: Consent Decree.

    Dear sir: Please do not force LBO to divest Cranmore Mountain or 
Waterville Valley. At first, we too were doubtful of LBO's 
intentions, and we were unsure of our town's future. However, in one 
year, and with a huge investment, Cranmore showed a profit, summer 
use is returning, and most importantly to us, local business is 
booming.
    The nature of the skiing business in the years ahead is about to 
be defined by LBO, and, quite frankly I don't know what that 
definition is, but it involves maximum use of our stores, our 
lodging, our dining facilities. In short it brings business to us 
and no one can do it as well as LBO.

        Sincerely,
Stanley P. Wilson,
Box 328, Intervale, NH 03845.

Conway Seat Cover Company

June 25, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I'm writing in response to the possible forced 
sale of Waterville Valley and Cranmore Mt.
    The idea that the retention of these area's by LBO Enterprises 
would contribute to the monopolizying of the ski & snowboard markets 
in these two area's is a real stretch.
    Firstly, I would like to point out, as I'm sure others have, 
that both of these areas are located quite near, by skier standards, 
to many other area's.
    Cranmore has Blade Mt., Shawnee Peak King Pine & Wildcat all 
within a half hour drive.
    Waterville has Gunstock, Cannon Mt., Loon (which is a huge 
operation) and many areas to the south which have to be passed by 
our southern N.E. Friends before that reach us.
    Along with my full time business, which does not cater to the 
tourist directly, I am a part time ski instructor working at 
Attitash for LBO. I'm a member of the Professional Ski Instructors 
of America and have been skiing in this Valley for almost 40 years.
    I have been around to see many changes, most not good as the 
skiing industry in this area has seen little growth and has been 
going slowly downhill for years, (no pun intended).
    In the short time LBO has been involved things have turned 
around dramatically.
    Will the cost of skiing go up? Probably but only in relations to 
improvements.
    Can he control pricing? I doubt it. The average skier can only 
go so far in paying for this sport and he or she are about there. 
The price controls in this sense are built in.
    Give the business man in this area a break and leave things 
alone. We need this company, he is successful and success breeds 
success.
    As I mentioned I don't deal directly with the tourists, but my 
business reflects on the Success of this town.
    I teach skiing because its fun and I enjoy it. With LBO I think 
it can only get better.
    Thanks for your time.

        Sincerely yours,
Joseph C. Webb

Dan Robinson

June 25, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Craig: I oppose the ATD's recommendation that Cranmere Mtn. 
and Waterville Valley be sold off to the recent LBO purchase of Ski 
Ltd. The truth is Lbo Enterprises delivers a better ski package than 
Cranmere [of] Waterville could ever hope to do on [there] own. I 
know--I've skied most of my 43 years and have had numerous seasons 
passes. Waterville with Tommy Cochran at the helm for 29 years just 
plain wasn't keeping up--LBO Enterprise is the perfect outfit to run 
Waterville and could deliver world class skiing that we skiers 
deserve! Prices are basically the same at most ski areas--all things 
considered, besides were talking descretionary dollars. Terrain & 
location dictate who your customers will be in the Ski World more 
than ticket prices and ownership. I've skied Cranmore all my life 
and since LBO took over skiing there has never been better. Please 
reconsider your actions--as skiers, we would be getting an Anti 
Trust Shafting just when things finally were looking up. I can't 
tell you how [unbelievably] frustrating It has been to be a ski 
fanatic and live in New England. From bad snow years to poor or slow 
capital improvements--It's always been something. LOB in the past 6 
years or so has raised the bar that most major ski areas have to 
clear to stay competitive. The length to consumers has been a 
dramatic improvement in Ski conditions at all competing areas. LBO 
has been very, very good to us and for New England skiing. No matter 
what you--Craig ultimately decide to do I'm going to invest my 
skiing dollar in LBO as they deliver By far the best skiing in New 
England. Let them expand this marvelous operation unhindered so 
others can experience LBO Skiing--skiing the way it should be.

        Thank you,
Dan Robinson,
525 Ocean House Rd., Cape Elizabeth, ME 04107 and Bethlehem NH, winter.
    If you wish to discuss this matter with a real skier I can be 
reached at 207-799-4729.

Peter B. Ward

June 25, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, NW., Washington. DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Please don't let the brevity of this note 
belittle the very strong opposition I'm extending to you regarding 
the Department of Justice's recent divestiture ruling on LBO's 
forced sale of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, New Hampshire. As you 
may be aware, Mt. Cranmore is the ``Mecca'' of skiing in this 
country, and over the years it has experienced good and bad times. 
With the arrival of Les Otten on the scene, this wonderful ski area 
finally has the opportunity to become a profitable operation, 
serving its community of faithful patrons in the manner originally 
intended by Harvey Gibson and Hannes Schneider.
    Please do everything possible to reverse this absurd ruling so 
that Mt. Cranmore may continue to thrive under strong and 
knowledgeable leadership. Washington Valley needs this attraction, 
and people such as myself, who have skied Mt. Cranmore since the 
late '30s, welcome Les Otten and his expertise!!!
    Please be thoughtful enough to respond to this plea.

        Respectfully,
Peter B. Ward,
60 Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944.

Dick Smith, Photography

June 25, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am sure that it was with good intent that 
the Department of Justice's decision to require LBO to divest itself 
of Waterville Valley Ski Area and Mt. Cranmore. I can only speak for 
Cranmore as I live in North Conway.
    Cranmore Mt. has gone through at least two owners and has been 
on the verge of bankruptcy for 10 or more years. It was with great 
relief and expectation to the residents and businesses when it was 
announced that LBO was buying Cranmore. The ski industry is not 
noted as a particularly profitable business and a bad winter in one 
area can be devastating. Thus owning ski areas in different parts of 
New England can spread the profits and losses of a particular area. 
It is unlikely that the owner of one area has the resources to 
withstand two or three bad winters. A new owner of Cranmore is 
unlikely to have the resources to carry Cranmore through the bad 
years and will be back in bankruptcy again dragging the local 
economy down with it.

[[Page 56009]]

    While competition is a noble principle, lowering ticket prices 
can only hurt the bottom line and put Cranmore on the brink of 
bankruptcy again.
    I am afraid that your decision was too narrow and the overall 
view of the local economy was not taken into consideration. I urge 
you to reconsider your decision and allow LBO to retain Mt. 
Cranmore.
    Thank You.

        Sincerely,
Dick Smith,
P.O. Box 300, Crestwood Drive, North Conway, New Hampshire 03860.

Robert L. Johnson, CPA & Associate

June 25, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Re: LBO Enterprises' requirement to divest itself of Cranmore & 
Waterville Valley

    Dear Mr. Conrath: As I understand from the local papers, the 
Justice Department is forcing LBO to divest itself of Cranmore and 
Waterville Valley. I will outline several points why LBO should be 
allowed to retain the above areas.
    Will divestiture increase competition--I doubt it.
    Both Cranmore and Waterville Valley have suffered through under-
capitalization and bankruptcies prior to purchase by LBO.
    There is no reason to assume that future small mountain 
operators will be able to withstand the capital needs to run free-
standing areas. Economies of scale that LBO has available include 
substantial buying power when negotiating for the purchase of fixed 
assets (i.e, lifts, supplies, electricity, etc.). LBO has an 
excellent track record of investing substantial sums in areas that 
they have purchased. LBO puts its money where its mouth is.
    The consent decree assumes that Cranmore and Waterville Valley 
can survive on their own. I have no doubt, based on prior histories 
of both ski areas, that the opposite is likely to be true. Without 
the buying power and capital of a larger organization, both areas 
are likely to return to their prior bankrupt ways. If both areas 
return to bankruptcy, then the Justice Department has not solved 
their perceived competition problem, but only limited consumers' 
ability to choose where to ski.
    Economic disruption for the communities dependent on Cranmore & 
Waterville Valley.
    Under the assumption that Cranmore and Waterville Valley could 
not survive without LBO, then the local communities will suffer 
accordingly. The Federal Government spends hundreds of thousands of 
dollars a year in our rural areas to promote the economy. The 
divestiture decision seems short-sighted. Again, LBO has a proven 
track record of investing in the ski areas with a positive fallout 
within the local community.
    Even if these small areas survive, they are likely to `'limp 
along'' with no competition impact to the industry.
    This merger will provide substantial cost savings and allow for 
survival or Cranmore and Waterville Valley.
    Enclosed please find an article from the Wall Street Journal 
entitled FTC to Weight Cost-Savings In Mergers, dated June 3, 1996. 
Briefly, the article says that some mergers deemed illegal today 
could be approved in the future with an appropriate study of the 
cost savings involved in ``production, distribution, promotion and 
other efficiencies * * * '' LBO has the ability to pool promotion, 
capital expenditures, etc. to provide high quality skiing that would 
otherwise not be available to small ski areas.
    Sad to say, but Cranmore and Waterville Valley's bankrupt past 
are proof positive that small areas are not economical to run.
    If the Justice Department can find a better ski alliance for 
Cranmore & Waterville Valley than LBO, I would like to see it.
    Conclusion.
    The industry is consolidating for the good and this 
consolidation will provide stability for both skiers and the 
surrounding communities which depend on Cranmore and Waterville 
Valley.
    I respectfully request that the Justice Department reconsider 
its order for divestiture of Cranmore and Waterville Valley.

        Very truly yours,
Robert L. Johnson, CPA/PFS,
Personal Financial Specialist.
enc. WST article 6/3/96--FTC Weigh Cost-Savings In Mergers.
cc: Senators Bob Smith & Judd Gregg, Congressmen Charles Bass & Bill 
Zeliff.

    The WST article of 6/3/96 was not able to be reprinted in the 
Federal Register, however, it may be inspected in Suite 215, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Legal Procedures Unit, 325 7th St., N.W., 
Washington, D.C. at (202) 514-2481 and at the Office of the Clerk of 
the United States Court for the District of Columbia.

Crest

June 25, 1996
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I write this letter as a small businessman in 
a small resort town who was deeply disappointed in the decision that 
Cranmore Mountain must be divested from LBO Enterprises.
    Having been in North Conway, New Hampshire for over 20 years, 
I've seen the gas lines, 21% interest rates, no snow, and the 
recession of the 90's. Through all these times, the question of 
whether Cranmore would continue to exist was always present on 
everyone's mind. For most of these years it was open, but not ready 
or financially capable of attracting tourists to our area. After 
twenty years, I thought we finally had some stability to our 
economic base with the purchase of Cranmore by LBO Enterprises.
    With the large capital investments that need to be made to 
operate a successful ski area and the marketing acumen to attract 
customers to the resort, there are few who can make this a 
successful venture. You may feel that there are other buyers who can 
offer the same, but in fact 20 years of experience indicates 
otherwise. While your concern is preserving competition and making 
sure that prices are competitive, you may in fact be doing just the 
opposite. It is unlikely that anyone buying Cranmore would have the 
purchasing power or management available. Consequently, the cost of 
doing business for someone new coming in would be higher than for 
LBO. Higher costs of doing business mean higher prices. No 
interchangeability of tickets or choices means fewer visitors, after 
all, there are other ski resorts or areas to visit that do offer 
this. Furthermore, even with LBO owning two ski areas in the Mt. 
Washington Valley there are still three other areas with three 
different owners. Five ski areas with four owners does not seem to 
have a monopoly over five areas with five owners.
    I understand that your concern is with the skiers of 
Massachusetts and there are still many choices for skiing available 
to them in other non LBO ski areas. I wish the Department of Justice 
was as concerned with the residents of the Conways/Mt. Washington 
Valley in the 70's, 80's, and 90's when we had gas shortages and 
bank foreclosures as they are now about the skiers from 
Massachusetts. The skiers will always have choices; we didn't when 
we faced gas lines, recessions, and bank foreclosures. We had an 
increase in skier visits last year because of the investment and 
value that skiers saw in our area due, in part, to LBO Enterprises. 
We have started to see some economic revival in our area. Please let 
the free enterprise system work.
    I respectfully request that your allow LBO Enterprises to 
continue its ownership and operation of Cranmore Mountain for the 
benefit of skiers, its employees, the residents of the Mt. 
Washington Valley, and for the State of New Hampshire.

       Sincerely,
Robert M. Weiss,
Dealer Principal.

Robert McManus

P.O. Box 516, Jackson, N.H. 03846.
June 25, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: My comments are directed to your recent 
position regarding the ownership of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, 
NH.
    My wife and I are retired innkeepers and for many years we were 
involved on a daily basis with the tourist related economy of the 
area that we call the Mount Washington Valley. With its geographic 
location, Mt. Cranmore is critical to the economy of the area.
    When Mt. Cranmore went bankrupt a few years ago, the effect on 
the area was dramatic. It was more than a loss of jobs and a drop in 
the number of dollars in circulation. There was a deterioration of 
the physical plant and the collective psyche.
    The acquisition of the complex by LBO was even more dramatic. 
The jobs came back. The economy took a boost. The region found a 
sense of hope for the future. There was a

[[Page 56010]]

substantial capital investment and a level of management expertise 
beyond the grasp of the usual ski area. I must add that Cranmore is 
much more than a ski area. It is a delightful summer tourist 
attraction. There are world class clay tennis courts and the only 
indoor courts within 60 miles. There is a health club with constant 
use by all age groups in the community.
    Your proposal to require LBO to divest the Cranmore complex has 
shaken the community to the core. I urge you to make a greater 
effort to examine the economic and social impact of this decision on 
the region.

        Sincerely,
Robert McManus,
Ann McManus.

June 26, 1996.

Harry Stead

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing to you to strongly protest the 
Justice Department's ill founded ruling that is forcing LBO to 
divest itself of Mt. Cranmore. I particularly found your Mr. 
Biggio's response to the Conway Daily Sun interview (6/25/96 issue) 
to be a typical Federal Gov't heavy handed response. Like; ``I don't 
recall a circumstance when we have withdrawn'' stated Biggio. Since 
when have you people become infallible?
    For Mr. Biggio to state that you entered into a settlement in 
concert with LBO was a joke you figuratively held a gun to his head. 
Here's another quote from Mr. Biggio. ``All this happened before the 
trigger was pulled'' and the assistant attorney general signed on to 
a hostile lawsuit. Sounds like a threat to me!
    As far as the Justice Dept filing a Competitive Impact Statement 
detailing their rational and conclusions, I submit that the 
Department does not have people that are knowledgeable enough in the 
factors that are required to make an old small ski area with a 
southern exposure in Mt. Washington Valley a successful venture. For 
Mr. Biggio to say that his staff talked to a number of operators, 
industry officials, as well as skiers is like taking a poll; the 
results can be steered by the way the questions are phrased. Anyway 
other operators & industry officials shouldn't count, only skiers 
opinions count. So why didn't your Dept hire a professional poll to 
[simple] ask the skiers at Mt. Cranmore during the Winter of '95-'96 
as to how they rated it that season as compared to any of the past 
15 seasons as to skiing conditions, amenities, cost etc etc; and 
whether they felt that LBO ownership was good for the skiers of 
Eastern New England. Not even if it was good for the economics of 
the Valley.
    If the Department's second concern is the economic impact on Mt. 
Washington Valley then splitting Cranmore off from it's sister 
Mountain, Attitash/Bear Peak will without a doubt have a negative 
economic impact.
    All Mr. Biggio's talk about the Justice Dept closely evaluating 
every prospective buyer to assure that Cranmore is put in the hands 
of a strong operator isn't anything more than pure rhetoric. I 
submit that the Dept is completely incapable of such an evaluation 
of prospective buyers; and secondly with a 180 day time limit on LBO 
to sell, you'll sell to the first buyer that comes along with the 
financial backing that will consummate a sale.
    I know that you have received many letters that have taken a 
very positive approach on why Cranmore needs to stay a part of the 
LBO family for it to survive; and I had planned to write such a 
letter until I read the interview of Mr. Biggio with his cavalier 
attitude.
    It's a sad state of affairs when the Federal Gov't spends our 
tax money to meddle into an industry that is fueled by discretionary 
spending and isn't ______ has been self regulating in a free market 
environment? The two ski areas in the State that have the poorest 
reputation are Cranmore Mt. and Mt. Sustapel both owned and operated 
by the State of New Hampshire. If this State can't successfully 
operate ski areas, what makes the Federal Gov't think that they can 
regulate a ski area to economic success.
    The Justice Dept should seriously consider all comments that it 
receives before and during the 60 day public comment period. Why 
ever have one if it's nothing more than a formality as indicated by 
Mr. Biggio when he states: ``I don't recall a circumstance when we 
have withdrawn publics faith in their gov't,'' if you truly 
considered the negative impact that forcing LBO to divest itself of 
Mt. Cranmore would have on Eastern New England Skiers.

        Very truly yours,
Harry Stead,
Roberta M. Stead,
7 Glem Ellis Road, Glem, NH 03838-1268.
cc: Senator Judd Gregg, Representative William Zeliff.

Sandra W. Dahl

June 26, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Sir: I am writing to urge you drop the government's 
insistence that LBO Enterprises divest itself of the Mount Cranmore 
ski area. LBO has revitalized this area's oldest ski resort and 
enabled the town to retain an important tourist attraction; to 
require that this ski area be put up for sale again and therefore 
into the hands of a corporation or person(s) with potentially less 
business ability and/or commitment to regional growth and 
development is absolutely ludicrous.
    My concern about this action is more deep-rooted than the 
potential damage to our local economy. My concern is that your 
agency has seen fit to restrict the growth of vital, dynamic 
organization which provides the general public a place to spend 
purely discretionary income. Skiing, alpine slides and water-play 
pools are not necessities of daily living; people are free to choose 
where and if they ski and there are any number of areas in Maine. 
New Hampshire and Vermont where one can choose to ski that are not 
owned by LBO. My concern is that the anti-trust laws or restrictions 
or whatever that type of thinking is called is being applied to a 
business involved in the provision of recreational activities to 
people who are free to choose when, if and where they participate in 
those activities. As for other providers of those elective 
activities, if they can do it better or at least as well, they will 
get the business.
    I am asking that the Justice Department throw out the consent 
decree against LBO and allow private enterprise to continue to grow 
unimpeded by governmental interference.

        Very truly yours,
Sandra W. Dahl,
P.O. Box 789, Glen, N.H. 03838.
 c.c. Rep. Zeliff, Sen. Gregg, Sen. Robert Smith, LBO Enterprises.

Robert C. Peterson

June 26, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It was with great concern and much confusion 
that I recently read of your ruling against LBO Enterprises of 
Sunday River, Maine. My concern is over the financial impact on the 
town of North Conway, NH if LBO does not continue to operate the Mt. 
Cranmore Ski Area.
    As you are probably aware, Mt. Cranmore has for some years now 
existed only at the pleasure of a series of private owners and a 
desperate bank. Under Mr. Otten's leadership last year, the 
facilities were improved, the staff expanded and the mountain's 
image considerably enhanced. For the first time in recent memory, 
the area ran profitably and the employees were paid on time. Mt. 
Cranmore is the most historic ski area in the U.S. Only as a member 
of a financially strong family can Cranmore continue to exist as one 
of the finest family ski areas in New England.
    My confusion can be best expressed by: ``WHY''? This is not AT&T 
or Microsoft! So what if one company controls 75% of the 
northeastern ski market. That's only 6 to 7% of the national market. 
If lift ticket prices go too high, people won't come. The whole 
process is self correcting. LBO ticket prices are already higher 
than the competition and are worth every penny. These people know 
how to put snow down! Customer service at LBO areas is excellent. It 
seems the only one that's unhappy about the things that LBO is doing 
for skiing in New England is the Justice Department.
    This whole issue just lends credence to the most feared words in 
the English language--``I'm from the Government and I'm here to help 
you!''
        Sincerely,
Robert C. Peterson,
Glen, NH 03838.

Richard & Lois Anthony

June 26, 1996.
    Mr. Craig W. Conrath: We have been winter residents in North 
Conway, N.H. for about 30 years, and avid skiers at Mt Cranmore and 
Attitash.

[[Page 56011]]

    We have been pleased with Les Otten's commitment to both ski 
areas and to the North Conway--Bartlett areas in general.
    We do not believe the Dept. of Justice's divestiture ruling on 
LBO's forced sale of Cranmore is in the best interest of the economy 
of the area and the skiing industry.
Richard & Lois Anthony,
3 Concannon Rd., Kingston, N.H. 03848.

M.L. Regan

June 26, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Div., US. Dept of Justice, 1401 H St. 
Washington D.C. 20530.

    Please reverse the decision re Mt. Cranmore in North Conway. LBO 
has helped the economy of this tourist valley & this antitrust is a 
blow to all.
Miriam Regan,
Box 345, Intervale, NH 03845.

Saint Anselm College

June 27, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath, Esquire,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, United States 
Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing about the forced sale of Cranmore 
Mountain Ski Area in connection with the acquisition by LBO Holdings 
of Ski Limited.
    We are very appreciative of the Antitrust Division of the 
Justice Department's protection of consumer interests in all mergers 
and acquisitions. We are equally appreciative of the Division's 
scrutiny of the LBO-Ski Ltd. transaction. However, it appears that 
the Division has been misled in this regard. Cranmore Mountain, 
which now operates in conjunction with Attitash Mountain, represents 
collectively with Attitash about 220,000 skier visits per year out 
of the approximate 2,000,000 skier visits annually in all the New 
Hampshire State Areas. This is hardly a monopoly threat to the Ski 
Industry in New Hampshire.
    For 25 years, Cranmore Mountain has struggled financially with 
the last two owners leading to insolvency and bankruptcy. Cranmore 
Mountain is vital to the economy of the North Conway, Conway and 
Fryeburg, Maine area. This area has struggled with the plight of 
Cranmore Mountain and other local ski areas. The Town is vitally 
involved in the mountain and the well being of the Mountain is vital 
to the Town. After twenty-five years of apprehension, investments 
and support, the purchase of Cranmore Mountain by LBO was the 
stability needed to rejuvenate Cranmore to viability.
    Cranmore Mountain was a birthplace of skiing in Northern New 
England. The mountain has produced scores of Olympic skiers that 
have represented the United States Ski Team.
    The forced sale of Cranmore Mountain will condemn this facility 
to mediocrity and possible extinction. Leaving Cranmore Mountain as 
a part of LBO Holdings or the American Ski Company will not impair 
the Ski Market in New Hampshire and will allow the Mount Washington 
Valley Area to pursue its viability in the winter ski business.
    Your favorable consideration in this matter will be appreciated. 
Thank you for your courtesy.

        Sincerely,
John J. Reilly, Jr.
cc. Senator Gregg, Senator Smith, Congressman Bass, Congressman 
Zeliif.

Jennifer K. Savoie

June 28, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

Re: Mount Cranmore, New Hampshire.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am saddened and concerned about your decry 
that LBO Holdings must divest itself of Mount Cranmore in order to 
purchase SKI Ltd. As a long-time resident of the Mt. Washington 
Valley, I have witnessed Mount Cranmore's steady decline, and then 
its recent resurgence under the guidance of Les Otten. It is a 
comforting scene in the wintertime to see the lights on at Mt. 
Cranmore again in the evening. The mountain has long been a focal 
point of our Valley.
    I am concerned that your decision will do much more harm to this 
Valley than good. Who else could possibly afford to buy the very 
small, family-oriented Mount Cranmore and continue to upgrade it 
enough to compete in today's marketplace * * * witness the hardship 
and bankruptcy of nearby Black Mountain Ski Area in Jackson, as well 
as countless other mountains that have fallen by the wayside (Mount 
Whittier, King Ridge, etc.).
    As a teacher of economics, I understand well the concept of 
competition and a free marketplace. However, Mount Cranmore is a 
unique situation which deserves special consideration and accolades 
to Mr. Otten for bringing it back from the brink of bankruptcy. In 
addition to the potential loss (forever!) of our beloved Mount 
Cranmore, consider the economic impact on the local economy of all 
the lost jobs at the mountain.
    As the Northeast continues to struggle out of our prolonged 
recession, I urgently request that you reconsider your decision. I 
don't believe that Mount Cranmore will survive without LBO Holdings, 
and I do believe that many jobs will be lost along with the ski 
area.
        Sincerely yours,
Jennifer K. Savoie,
PO Box 715, 17 Skyline Drive, Intervale, NH 03845.

Frank Murphy and Family

June 29, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530.

Re.: Les Otten and the Forced Sale of Mount Cranmore Ski Area.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: In the past ten years Mt. Cranmore has had 
three different owners. Prior to Mr. Otten it was always a 
``leaking, leaner'' of a ski area. That's a sailors term to describe 
an old, rusty bucket of a ship. In one year of ownership Mr. Otten 
has brought sparkle to Cranmore with torch light parades and fire 
works. He has run it with all the flair of a Swiss ski resort.
    In October, 1995 with the promise of Mr. Otten's presence in the 
Mount Washington Valley at both Cranmore and Attitash, I moved my 
family from Gloucester, Massachusetts to North Conway, New 
Hampshire. Are you familiar with Mr. Otten's campaign to bring 
people to the North Conway area? He ran a very successful marketing 
campaign called ``Ski the Presidentials!'' This revved up the Mount 
Washington Valley economy. Exactly why I moved here.
    I own an eleven year old, center entry, colonial on .6 acres of 
land with views of North and Kearsage Mountains. If the Justice 
Department sticks to its decision that Mr. Otten must sell Cranmore, 
can you locate a buyer for my home as well?
        Sincerely,
Frank, Marie-Louise, Brendan, Dylan, and Leigh Erin Murphy.
c.c. Senator Bob Smith, 50 Phillippe Cote Street, Manchester, NH 
03101, Senator Judd Gregg, 28 Webster Street, Manchester, NH 03104, 
Congressman Charlie Bass, 142 North Main Street, Concord, NH 03301, 
Congressman Bill Zeliff, 340 Commercial Street, Manchester, NH 
03101.

Jean M. Lees

June 30, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Three generations of my family have enjoyed 
skiing and hiking on the slopes of Cranmore. The Cranmore Mt. 
complex has been the focus of many town activities--sports and 
festivities--since the skimobile was built in 1939. Therefore, we 
are deeply concerned that Cranmore will continue to survive and 
prosper.
    We had hoped, however, that it would not become a Sunday River 
Type ski operation with massive expansion and rapid development. 
While Sunday seems a highly successful ski area, it has done little 
to enhance the Bethel region. The recent constructions near the 
Bethel railroad site look extremely shoddy. Here, we have many small 
interests, local inns and shops that would not necessarily benefit 
by one major controlling operation.
    Therefore, many of us favored the Justice Department's move to 
curb L.B.O. Corp.'s acquisitive and pervasive tactics before 
Cranmore and its surrounding land become part of a huge New England 
monopoly.
        Sincerely,
Jean M. Lees.

Tech Works

June 30, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530.

Re: LBO-SKI Ltd Acquisition--Cranmore Ski Resort.


[[Page 56012]]


    Dear Sir: I write you to express my strong opposition to DOJ's 
requirement that Cranmore Ski Resort be divested by LBO in order to 
gain approval for the subject acquisition. My reasons are threefold.
    Since I moved to Conway, NH four (4) years ago, Cranmore has 
been a weak, sick ski area, recovering only since its acquisition by 
LBO somewhat over a year ago. Even in its former weakened condition, 
it was and continues to be vital to the winter time health of the 
Mount Washington Valley. If Cranmore is again forced to struggle for 
capital and marketing clout (or eventually fail for the lack of 
them), this Valley and its some 20,000 residents will be irreparably 
damaged. What assurance is DOJ giving that this will not happen? 
Does the DOJ even care, or is the intellectual pursuit of 
``competition'' more important?
    Downhill skiing, while probably the most significant, is but one 
of several wintertime sports that attracts people to The North 
Country. Downhill skiing competes with cross country skiing, 
snowmobiling, ice climbing, ice skating, etc. This raises the 
following question: What is considered to be the ``relevant market'' 
on which this divestiture is being required? So what if American Ski 
Company would own 25% of the downhill skiing in the Northeast! I 
believe the relevant market is must broader than downhill skiing in 
the Northeast. On occasions too numerous to count, I personally have 
decided not to downhill ski in favor of a less expensive 
alternative. Did DOJ take these other wintertime competitors into 
account? What kind of market share would American Ski Co. have if 
these directly competitive alternatives were taken into account? Far 
less than 25%, and far less than the market share of many other 
acquisitions that have been approved by DOJ.
    Aside from the other sports that compete with downhill skiing, 
winter vacation destinations compete on a worldwide basis. 
Specifically, downhill skiing in the Northeast competes with skiing 
in the West and in Europe. Again, based on personal experience when 
I lived in Pennsylvania for 20 years, I used to take the family for 
a ski week in the Northeast (Vermont, Maine and Canada). Later, I 
began taking them to Colorado, Utah and the like as air travel 
became cheaper and more convenient. We also once went to Europe. The 
competition wasn't between ski areas in NH and VT; the competition 
was between the West/Europe/Canada and the Northeast. In fact, I 
believe statistics will show that the Northeast is losing this 
battle in a bad way. Where is money being spent for expansion? 
Certainly not in the Northeast.
    Cranmore had become a new and wonderful place under LBO, in just 
one year! A new hi-speed quad chair was installed; restaurants were 
improved; grooming was made more exciting; and plans were underway 
for additional slopes and lodging. Now we are back to the old 
uncertainties, questionable supply of new money, only regional 
marketing, if that--and this is supposed to compete with the likes 
of Vail, Deer Valley, Telluride, Beaver Creek! Forget it. Cranmore 
is finished if divested from LBO; our best hope is a marginal, 
regional slope that may not even be able to pay the electric bill to 
make snow as required (like before). The worst case would be 
failure--would that foster competition?
    Please reconsider your decision. Please give Cranmore a chance 
to compete with the real players on a worldwide basis. Let them 
remain part of an organization that can advertise nationwide, even 
worldwide, to attract customers from afar who want to ski a variety 
of slopes in the Northeast on a package basis of some sort. If their 
prices rise too much, people aren't dumb with their discretionary 
spending. They will ski the West, or Canada, or Europe. If they 
can't afford places like that, they will ski cross country, ice 
skate, or just build a snow man.
    To think that LBO/American Skiing Co. would have the market 
power to raise prices in an anti-competitive way is about like 
saying they have the power to make it snow. They have neither. Let 
them build New England skiing so that once again this region can 
compete with the current powerhouses of skiing. Then we might see 
some real competition!
        Respectfully submitted,
David S. Urey.
cc: Congressman William Zeliff, Les B. Otten, The Conway Daily Sun.

Thomas A. Mulkern

Craig W. Conrath,
Antitrust Division, Dept. Of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Back in the 1930's, Harvey Gibson managed to 
obtain the release of Hannes Schneider from a German concentration 
camp and to introduce him to Cranmore Mt. in No. Conway, NH. It 
marked the beginning of Alpine skiing in North America.
    From that modest birth, skiing has become a mammoth industry 
spawning giant areas like Vale, Aspen, Tahoe, Sun Valley, Jackson 
Hole, et al. The tiny area of Cranmore Mt. remains eminent only as a 
historical footnote.
    Yet, despite its relative obscurity, it has somehow managed to 
attract the attention of the Antitrust Division of U.S. Dept. of 
Justice. As one who has spent a lifetime as a devotee of alpine 
skiing and who owns property in the area involved I am writing to 
you to protest this action.
    In the New England ski industry whose past is strewn with 
failures, Les Otten stands out like a beacon of light in a sea of 
disaster. Until he arrived on the scene, Mt. Cranmore suffered 
through a succession of inept performers to the point of imminent 
bankruptcy. Let Otten comes to the rescue with a major infusion of 
capital investment and operational know-how and not only breathes 
new life in the resort but promises to expand it to a first class 
ski area once again.
    For this he gets not the applause he has earned for saving jobs, 
restoring property values and insuring the future of the village of 
No. Conway but instead, the attention of the Antitrust Division of 
the U.S. Department of Justice.
    Is it any wonder recent national polls reveal an alarming 
portion of the American public becoming increasingly disenchanted 
with the federal government because of what they perceive to be 
intrusion in their private lives?
    I see this as an example of such intrusion and I intend to use 
all the support I can find to oppose it.
        Sincerely,
Thomas A. Mulkern,
4 Cortland Lane, Lynnfield, MA 01940.

SURRETTE TRUCK CAPS

Craig W. Conrath,
U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1401 H. Street NW, Washington, DC 20530.
    Dear Mr. Conrath: I think the Antitrust Division is making a big 
mistake by asking LBO Enterprises to divest Mt. Cranmore for a 
number of reasons.
    The first reason is, we in the Mt. Washington Valley live on 
tourism. With people not coming to Conway, it will hurt many small 
business people.
    Mt. Cranmore is a weak link in the ski business. By taking it 
out you only make LBO's other holdings, Attiash, Bear Peak, and 
Sunday River, stronger.
    Many ski areas in N.H. have closed down. If LBO' prices get too 
high, I am sure other areas will reopen.
        Sincerely,
Richard Surrette.

Ronald K. ``JAZZID'' Moore

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force; Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept of Justice, 
1401 H St NW, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing in regard to the divesture of 
Cranmore Mt Ski Area in North Conway, NH from LBO. I feel this is 
the wrong decision, since the ski area has not done well in recent 
years and almost went belly up! Until this the first year under LBO 
when it turned a profit! Ski areas are a very iffy enterprise as it 
is, what with depending on mother nature, the economy and the 
consumer! Speaking of the consumer, we could always ski elsewhere if 
LBO raised the prices at Cranmore, which I don't think he will. LBO 
can run ski areas profitably, and provide jobs for people in the 
community.
    So, Craig, I beg you, do the right thing, which We seldom see 
done in DC and let LBO continue as the ownership of Mt. Cranmore! 
Thanks for listening.
        Sincerely yours,
Ronald K. Moore.

Capt. David E. Bartlett

Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force; Antitrust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530.

Subj: Divestiture of Cranmore LBO/SKI Ltd merger.

    Dear Sir: As a professional ski instructor at Mt. Cranmore for 
the past 13 years. I have worked for at least 4 different owners/
managers. LBO was the first to bring stability and confidence. The 
current ruling does not undermine but destroys both of those issues. 
In the list of areas impacted by the merger, in my opinion Mt. 
Cranmore is [``Physically'',] the ``runt of the litter''. I fail to 
see how forcing the [seperation] of the smallest area breaks a 
monopoly. If the

[[Page 56013]]

concern is regionally, due to its [proxcimity] to Attitash/Bar Peak, 
the only entity that has openly voiced interest is another ski area 
25 minutes up the road.
    This divestiture is possibly the final nail in Mt. Cranmore's 
coffin. The potential for Cranmore's growth, and consequently, the 
growth of skiing in New England will only be enhanced by your review 
and reversal of this decision.
        Resp.
David E. Bartlett.

M/M Robert M. Fisher

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice.

    No doubt you have already received more than your share of 
letters concerning the impending divestiture of Cranmore and 
Waterville by LBO. And I am sure that you have heard Representative 
Zeliff's arguments on behalf of the whole Mt. Washington Valley 
whose economy depends so desperately upon the ski industry.
    As a long-time resident, retired public school teacher and ski 
coach, all of whose children have to a certain degree achieved their 
academic objectives in part because of their skiing experiences here 
in the valley, and whose livelihood has also been enhanced by skiing 
opportunities here, I must argue strongly in favor of 
reconsideration of the divestiture decision.
    Cranmore was financially shakey when LBO rescued the operation 
with a transfusion of capital and know-how which enabled the ski 
area to function competitively for the first time in a number of 
years of--dare I say?--modest management. Perhaps because our 
youngest daughter was a two-time Olympian on the U.S. Ski Team and 
has continued her career as a coach, as have all our other children 
who got their start at the Junior Program on Cranmore, I am 
particularly sensitive to the needs of the community. Even more so 
because severe school budget cutting (in the order of 10%) threatens 
that very junior program which has spawned so many local Olympians, 
teachers, and coaches.

Thank you for reading these comments.
        Sincerely yours,
M/M Robert M. Fisher,
615 Potter Road, Center Conway, NH 03813.

Robert A. McDaniel and Anita McDaniel

June 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I was very disappointed that the members of 
the justice department's merger task force decided to exercise their 
authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in the 
New Hampshire ski industry. I emphasize the word potential for the 
following reasons:
    LBO would own only 25 percent of the New England ski market.
    Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, which abut 
the small state of New Hampshire, is fierce.
    The government has perfect price control mechanisms through Mt. 
Sunapee and Cannon Mountain, which are both state-owned ski areas.
    The fact that New England does not have a single destination ski 
area to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Snowbird, Jackson Hole, Steamboat or Sun Valley.
    Many ski industry owners, with the exception of Les Otten, have 
encountered a real struggle to remain solvent, much less make 
significant expansion investments.
    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should take a look at 
what the real conditions are before restricting the economy.
    My disappointment stems from the over-reach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has fortunate to find someone 
with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major player in 
the ski industry.
        Very truly yours,
Robert A. McDaniel,
Anita McDaniel.
19 Bellview Ave., Marehorn, MA 01752.

Gilbert G. Mahan

June 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I was very disappointed that the members of 
the justice department's merger task force decided to exercise their 
authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in the 
New Hampshire ski industry. I emphasize the word potential for the 
following reasons:
    LBO would own only 25 percent of the New England ski market.
    Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, which abut 
the small state of New Hampshire, is fierce.
    The government has perfect price control mechanisms through Mt. 
Sunapee and Cannon Mountain, which are both state-owned ski areas.
    The fact that New England does not have a single destination ski 
area to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Snowbird, Jackson Hole, Steamboat or Sun Valley.
    Many ski industry owners, with the exception of Les Otten, have 
encountered a real struggle to remain solvent, much less make 
significant expansion investments.
    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should take a look at 
what the real conditions are before restricting the economy.
    My disappointment stems from the over-reach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has been fortunate to find 
someone with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major 
player in the ski industry.
        Very truly yours,
Gilbert G. Mahan,
P.O. Box 278, Kearsarge, NH 03847.

Robert E. and Joan W. Billings

June 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I was very disappointed that the members of 
the justice department's merger task force decided to exercise their 
authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in the 
New Hampshire ski industry. I emphasize the word potential for the 
following reasons:
    LBO would own only 25 percent of the New England ski market.
    Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, which abut 
the small state of New Hampshire, is fierce.
    The government has perfect price control mechanisms through Mt. 
Sunapee and Cannon Mountain, which are both state-owned ski areas.
    The fact that New England does not have a single destination ski 
area to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Snowbird, Jackson Hole, Steamboat or Sun Valley.
    Many ski industry owners, with the exception of Les Otten, have 
encountered a real struggle to remain solvent, much less make 
significant expansion investments.
    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should take a look at 
what the real conditions are before restricting the economy.
    My disappointment stems from the over-reach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has been fortunate to find 
someone with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major 
player in the ski industry.
        Very truly yours,
Robert E. & Joan W. Billings.

David A. Pope

July 1, 1986.
U.S. Dept of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20530.

ATT. Mr. Craig W. Conrath, Ch. Merger Task Force, Antitrust Div.

Subject: Forced Sale of Cranmore MT by Les Otten/The American Skiing 
Co.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: In your effort to be fair, you are about to 
commit the all time miscarriage of justice by forcing the Amer. 
Skiing Co/Les Otten to sell Mt. Cranmore in No. Conway for the 
following reasons:
    (1) By forcing the sale of Mt. Cranmore while it makes good 
``Window Dressing'' for the Anti-Trust Div., it will be disastrous 
for the town of No. Conway.
    (2) When Les Otten bought Cranmore, his presence stabilized the 
real estate market, and brought new confidence to the Mt. Washington 
Valley.
    (3) Les Otten spent (3) three million or more dollars and 
rejuvenated the entire mountain and created great skiing.
    (4) He started making snow in Nov 1995 and opened the earliest 
season in 58 years. (No one else thought it could be done.)
    (5) His combined ski ticket between Cranmore and Attitash-Bear 
Peak gave the skier the best choice and the best value-saved money.
    (6) Competition is everywhere--Wildcat, Bretton Woods, Black Mt. 
Pleasant, Mt.

[[Page 56014]]

Franconia, Sunapee, Loon, Ragged Mt. Gunstock, Stone VT Okemo and 
more.
    (7) Les Otten (The American Skiing Co.) will always be strong 
competitors because he knows how to run a ski area, how to make 
snow, how to groom, how to feed people and how to listen to people's 
complaints and then respond.
    (8) Small areas like Cranmore and Waterville Valley need a 
strong, financially sound owner who is not afraid to invest money 
and then want to see the results build.
    (9) If you rescind your push for the sale of Mt. Cranmore, you 
can rest assured that it will stay viable and be expanded and the 
entire valley will benefit. If it is sold to someone else, the 
reverse will happen and skiers will be paying more and receiving 
less. Please--Please rescind the Anti-Trust Div. actions in forcing 
Les Otten to sell anything. The skiing industry does not need Anti-
Trust protection. People can keep prices and competition in line. It 
costs too much, skiers go elsewhere--or not at all.
    Thank you,
        Very Truly Yours,
David A. Pope,
Box 120, Kearsarge, NH 03847.

    PS. Thousands of people think the same way I do.

Mrs. Janet Cooper

    Please vote to reverse the D.O.J.'s decision: Mt. Cranmore, N. 
Conway N.H. needs LB Otten's expertise to operate the ski area 
successfully.
    It is most important for the economy of Mt. Washington Valley.
        Thank you,
Mrs. Janet Cooper,
45 Plainfield St., Waban, MA 02168.

Jeff Barley

    Dear Sir: Forcing LBO to divest itself of Cranmore ski area 
makes no sense. Cranmore is the life blood of North Conway and North 
Convey is the Keystone of the travel and tourist industry of 
northern N.H. We have seen one owner after another come & go because 
of limited capital. We finally have a stable owner and you're taking 
them away. Ridiculous.
Jeff Barley

StoryLand

July 2, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am the founder of Story Land, a children's 
theme park and a museum depicting our state's 350 year history.
    I grew up in this valley, and except for military service, have 
lived here all my 76 years. I was part of the birth and growth and 
investment needed to bring a winter industry into being. It is a 
risky business wherever it exists anywhere in the world, but it is 
the focal point of the economic activity in an area. Without the ski 
area, the peripheral businesses don't sprout.
    LBO has come at a very propitious time in the evolution of this 
industry and his concept and monetary leverage bring this fragmented 
industry into the 21st century. Will LBO be able to control the 
skier market and pricing in this upper New England area? I don't 
think so. Its share will provide the economics of scale necessary 
for the huge capital expenditures and still leave \2/3\ of the 
market to entrepreneurs to offer alternatives in composition and 
pricing. This country was built on this concept.
    I write in the hope that you will reconsider the proposed action 
as a condition for the permanent merger with SKI.
        Yours truly,
Robert S. Morrell,
Founder-Chairman.
cc: Congressman Zeliff,
Senator Judd Gregg,
Senator Bob Smith.

Roy A. Lundquist

July 2, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20530.

Subject: Divestiture of Mount Cranmore and Waterville Valley.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing this letter to express my 
concerns regarding the recent decision that L.B. Otten and the 
American Ski Company divest the Mount Cranmore and Waterville Valley 
ski areas. I believe this decision to be contrary to the best 
interests of the skiing public and the communities in which these 
ski areas do business.
    I have been an ardent skier for over 50 years. In my career I 
was employed in the defense electronics business as an engineer, 
program manager and marketing manager. Now retired, I still ski over 
100 days a year. I have seen the ski industry grow from a fledgling 
sport in the '40's and '50's through the growth years of the '60's 
and '70's to the stagnation that began in the '80's and continues to 
exist. It has been well documented by the industry publications that 
the skiing population has remained constant for the last decade. It 
is not, by any measurement, considered to be a growth industry. To 
the contrary, it is an industry that is desperately trying to 
survive. In New England alone, the number of ski areas that operate 
today is only about one-half the number that were in existence 20 
years ago.
    The ski area business today is unique. It has become a business 
that is extremely capital and energy intensive. Todays skier demands 
much more of the ski areas than was the case several years ago. They 
demand high speed lifts, both fixed and detachable, which cost 
anywhere from $1 million to $2 million to install. They demand 
extensive snowmaking to avoid the vagaries of normal winters, which 
come at a very high cost to install and have a very high energy cost 
to operate. And then they demand that all this snow be meticulously 
groomed by a fleet of machines that cost around $200,000 each. In 
addition, skiers want to have fine amenities in the lodges and 
restaurants.
    It is interesting to note that the ski areas that are the most 
successful are those that have invested considerable capital in 
providing what the skiers want: namely high speed lifts, good snow 
making and good grooming, as well as good amenities. It is also 
interesting to note that the successful ski areas not only draw the 
greatest number of skiers by far, but they also charge the highest 
lift ticket prices. One must conclude from this that the skier of 
today is willing to pay the market price for a good product. 
Certainly lower priced ski areas exist. But they do not provide the 
quality ski experience that the major areas provide, and therefore 
do not attract the number of skiers. Without the skier visits these 
lower priced areas cannot generate enough revenue to make the 
capital improvements necessary to attract more skiers. It is a 
classic ``Catch 22'' situation. In the long run the lower priced 
areas either continue on in a marginal profit situation catering to 
a small niche of skiers, or, as has happened to so many small ski 
areas, they go out of business. It appears that, because of the 
capital intensive nature of today's ski business, that size and 
economies of scale are essential not only to provide a quality 
product, but to generate the necessary volume of skier traffic to 
make a profit.
    I would like to discuss the Mount Cranmore situation, as I live 
in North Conway where Mount Cranmore is located. Cranmore is the 
birthplace of American skiing. It is here that the legendary Hannes 
Schneider came to from Austria in 1939 and began teaching skiing to 
the ski hungry public. Cranmore grew as the sport developed in the 
'40's and '50's. However, it did not follow the boom of the '60's 
and '70's as newer ski areas came into existence. Cranmore did not 
continue to reinvest in capital improvements. For years the 
popularity of Cranmore declined, and even though it priced its 
tickets lower than the newer areas, specifically Attitash, its skier 
visits decreased. It went through a series of ownership changes, but 
capital improvements were minimal or ill-conceived. Cranmore was on 
the verge of bankruptcy and facing possible closure when it was 
purchased (from the bank) by Les Otten. Otten did several things. He 
marketed it in conjunction with Attitash and sold a combined 
facility lift ticket. He made major capital improvements: addition 
of a high-speed detachable chair lift, expansion and upgrading of 
the snow making system, increasing the fleet of groomers, improving 
the restaurants and amenities. He made snow earlier than ever 
before, and not only opened for the season earlier than ever, but 
extended the closing date to its latest ever. He announced plans for 
a major expansion to an adjacent mountain. And yes, he increased the 
price of lift tickets to the same as Attitash. And what happened? 
Skier visits increased by 50% over the previous year. And this in 
spite of the fact that lower priced ski areas continued to operate 
within a 30 mile radius, namely Black Mountain, King Pine, Wildcat, 
Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods.
    The Department of Justice ruling on the divestiture stated that 
the primary reason was to prevent the American Ski Company from 
creating a monopoly that would eliminate lower priced alternatives 
from the skiing public. I find this reasoning to be flawed, 
particularly with respect to Mount Cranmore, for the following 
reasons:
    There are five other ski areas within a 30 mile radius that 
provide lower ticket pricing

[[Page 56015]]

than the Attitash/Bear Peak/Cranmore complex. These are Black 
Mountain, King Pine, Wildcat, Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods.
    The quality of the product demanded by today's skier requires 
large capital expenditures by the ski areas. The skier is willing to 
pay the market price in order to get the ski experience that results 
from the capital expenditures. The most successful ski areas, as 
measured by skier visits, universally charge the highest prices for 
lift tickets.
    The skiers from the metropolitan areas of Boston, Hartford, 
Portland and New York comprise the majority of the skiing population 
in New England. They have many alternatives other than those owned 
by the American Ski Company. They will be attracted to those areas 
that provide a quality product at a reasonable market price. This 
competition will provide stability to the price of lift tickets.
    The size of the skiing population is constant, and is not 
predicted to increase. In order to maintain or increase market 
share, ski areas will have to continue to invest in capital 
equipment. This requires that the areas increase the number of skier 
visits, and/or expand their operations so as to provide efficiency 
and cost improvements through economies of scale.
    Small ski areas will continue to provide lower cost 
alternatives, but at the expense of the quality of the ski 
experience, i.e. slower lifts, less snowmaking, less grooming and 
poorer amenities. If these smaller ski areas can not attract 
sufficient skiers, they too, like so many have already, will go out 
of business. It is very possible that Mount Cranmore will return to 
this status as a marginal ski area with an uncertain future if the 
divestiture is carried out.
    I request that the Department of Justice reconsider its position 
on the divestiture of Mount Cranmore and Waterville Valley. As I 
have pointed out, this action will be detrimental to the skiing 
public, and to the individual areas, and ultimately to the local 
community. The capital needs of the two areas in question will best 
be served by continuing their relationship as part of the American 
Ski Company. Sufficient lower priced ski areas exist in the 
immediate surrounding area to satisfy the Department of Justice 
concerns.
        Very truly yours,
Roy A. Lundquist.
cc: Rep. William Zeliff,
Sen. Judd Gregg,
Sen. Robert Smith.

Richard O. and Gloria Pinkham

July 3, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath, Chief,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: We are very disappointed that the members of 
the justice department's merger task force decided to exercise their 
authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in the 
New Hampshire ski industry. We emphasize the word potential for the 
following reasons:

--LBO would own only 25 percent of the New England ski market.
--Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, which abut the 
small state of New Hamphire, is fierce.
--The government has perfect price control mechanisms through Mt. 
Sunapee and Cannon Mountain, which are both state-owned ski areas.
--The fact that New England does not have a single destination ski 
area to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Snowbird, Jackson Hole, Steamboat or Sun Valley.
--Many ski industry owners, with the exception of Ies Otten, have 
encountered a real struggle to remain solvent, much less make 
significant expansion investments.

    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should take a look at 
what the real conditions are before restricting the economy.
    Our disappointment stems from the over-reach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has been fortunate to find 
someone with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major 
player in the ski industry.

        Very truly yours,
Richard O. and Gloria Pinkham,
44 Powers Road, Concord, MA 01742 and Westside Road (P.O. Box 361, 
Glen, NH 03838
cc. Rep. Bill Zellif.

Cynthia A. Feltch

July 3, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H. Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: This is regarding the forced divestment of 
Mount Cranmore and Waterville Valley by LBO Enterprises and S-K-I 
Ltd. prior to their merger forming The American Skiing Company. 
Being a business person who resides in the Mount Washington Valley 
of New Hampshire and an avid ski enthusiast, I feel compelled to 
communicate my dismay with the decision which has been made.
    Frankly, the logic of this decision by the Dept. of Justice 
alludes me. This determination looks and feels an awful lot like 
bureaucratic involvement in an area much less understood than bits, 
bytes and proprietary software. This is a business of recreation. It 
is not a life sustaining activity required for long term human 
existence. Moreover, it involves a rather small segment of the U.S. 
population which can afford the expenditure of discretionary 
dollars. Skiing is not part of our daily allowance of vitamins.
    I do not believe that the DOJ is looking at the true 
demographics of the ski industry in the Northeast when it says that 
Waterville, Cranmore and Attitash/Bear Peak garner a 90%+ ratio of 
skier visits from Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The simple fact 
is, you are not comparing apples to apples. Each of these area has 
different terrain, amenities and accommodations to offer their 
visitors. What one mountain may do well, another does not offer at 
all. Cranmore is known as a family mountain. This means the terrain 
is easier to ski and the area caters to small children. Attitash on 
the other hand offers significantly more difficult terrain and 
attracts skiers who do not want to ski with small children. 
Waterville is so far removed from both of these areas in the winter 
months due to access across the mountains that it does not share 
skiers with either Cranmore or Attitash. Typically, visitors who are 
skiing on the western slope (I-93 side of the mountains) do not 
venture over to the eastern slope (Rt. 16/Mt. Washington Valley). 
While visiting Waterville, they will avail themselves of the skiing 
at Loon Mountain, Cannon Mountain or Gunstock, all of which are 
owned and operated by other companies. Likewise, the same can be 
said for skiers on the eastern slope who may choose from King Pine, 
Black Mountain or Wildcat if they want a change from Cranmore or 
Attitash.
    To point to two specific mountains and contend that they create 
an unfair trade advantage is ludicrous. With all the aforementioned 
choices, skiers and their families are not being held hostage by one 
company. This is a market driven industry. If the consumer does not 
like what is being offered, they can go elsewhere and be satisfied. 
No one is holding a gun to skier's heads and making them spend their 
discretionary income on this sport. No one at LBO or S-K-I Ltd. has 
given those of us who operate businesses within their geographic 
areas reason to believe that they are anything less than savvy 
entrepreneurs. Why should we assume the worst now that these two 
companies are joining forces to bring the industry better skiing 
experiences?
    In closing, I believe that the forced divestment of Waterville 
and Cranmore bodes very badly for the Camden, NH and North Conway, 
NH areas. The capital investments made by LBO and S-K-I in the 
preceding years marked an economic turning point for these two 
towns. Prior owners and operators did not have the capital or the 
vision to improve these two areas to any great extent. What LBO and 
S-K-I did in their short tenures was remarkable and encouraging to 
those of us who witnessed the improvements. To cut this 
metamorphosis short is to blindly sever the opportunities of two 
communities who were just beginning to make a comeback in the ski 
industry.

        Respectfully,
Cynthia A. Feltch,
PO Box 40, Bartlett, NH 03812.

Signature Breads

July 5, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
1404 H Street, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is unfortunate that the members of the 
justice department's merger task force have decided to exercise 
their authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in 
the New Hampshire ski industry. Please note emphasize on the word 
``potential'' for the following reasons:

LBO would own only 25% of the New England ski market.
Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine which abut the 
small state of New Hampshire is fierce.

[[Page 56016]]

The government has in place price control mechanisms through state 
owned ski areas--Mt. Sunapee and Cannon Mountains.
The fact that there are no single destination ski areas in New 
England to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Jackson Hole, Snow Bird, Steamboat, SunValley, etc.
Many New England ski owners, Les Otten is an exception, have had a 
very real struggle just to remain solvent and do not have the 
resources to make significant investments.

    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should look at what the 
real conditions are before taking actions which will restrict the 
economy.
    It is very disturbing to note the over reach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has been fortunate to find 
someone with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major 
player in the ski industry.

        Sincerely,
Harold Berk,
300 Middlesex Avenue, Medford, MA 02155.

Boy Kyle

    Dear Mr. Conrath: As an avid skier (not a rich one) I think the 
decision on Cranmore in N.H. is not a very good one.
    Les Otten bought Cranmore when it was down and out and brought 
it back where it should be. To force him out makes no sense at all.
    You must realize there are not to many people who can afford to 
buy a ski area, much less someone who even wants one.
    We'll take care of the price of lift tickets. When they get to 
high we just won't buy any. Let the market dictate the price, not 
the government. I'm sure you have bigger fish to fry!
Boy Kyle,
Bartlett, N.H.

James Lane

July 8, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1404 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Sir: Your efforts to prevent LBO Holdings from maintaining 
ownership of Cranmore Ski area in No. Conway, N.H. are 
representative of ignorant government intervention in a business and 
ultimately in the everyday lives of residents in this area. You need 
a vision--a vision we all have up here in the Mt. Washington Valley 
that what LBO Holdings has initiated is of benefit to EVERYONE.
    The Antitrust Division decree is a disgraceful authoritarian 
governmental punishment to a business venture that has been 
successful. LBO Holdings' businesses have been a god-send for the 
people here in the Valley and for all those who come here because of 
LBO's business acumen. There is something radically awry in your 
Merger Task Force activities. You need to be advised by people who 
intuitively know that your directives in this matter are ill-
advised, ill-informed, ill-judged, and ill-willed toward anyone who 
could possibly benefit from the business foresight of LBO Holdings.
    If it is true that what is good for business, is good for the 
Nation as a whole, then you are on the wrong track by depriving this 
area of the benefits that have accrued from LBO Holdings' presence 
in this Valley. You need to keep in the forefront of your mind, that 
if LBO Holdings had not bought and nurtured Cranmore, there would 
have been no Cranmore for you to squack about. Indeed, the 
competition is not smashed by LBO's wizardry, there just isn't any 
competition without his presence at Cranmore. Therefore, you need to 
recind your interference now and we all look forward to your doing 
so. Thank you.

        Yours truly,
James Lane,
P.O. Box 485, Jackson, N.H. 03846.

William J. Denning

Mr. Craig Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: A period of time has passed since the news of 
forced divestiture of Mt. Cranmore was made public, with that in 
mind, I have had adequate time to put together my thoughts on the 
subject.
    I have little knowledge on term ``monopoly.'' Certainly, I do 
not qualify as an expert. Understanding says that the reasoning 
behind the forced divestiture of Cranmore and Waterville, is to keep 
one organization--LBO--from controlling too much of one business in 
one area so prices remain competitive.
    I would hope that the economic well-being of the people in a 
small area of New Hampshire could be factored into the process.
    If we look at Mt. Cranmore in particular, their recent and not 
so recent past, it becomes quite obvious that they have had 
troubles, which include bank take-over. These troubles may have been 
due to a real misunderstanding of the ski industry; they may have 
been due to economic times; they may have been due to a lack of 
capital. I am unable to say with any degree of certainty. What I am 
able to say with a degree of certainty is that since the LBO 
organization has taken over, capital improvements have been made, 
management with an understanding of the ski industry (and it is 
unique) has been put in place, and the mountain is a viable area 
once again.
    This small N.H. valley needs this area in order to retain its 
economic health. This ski area needs a strong, willing and capable 
management in order to survive. The LBO organization has a track 
record which proves it is the right one, in the right place at the 
right time.
    It has always been the prerogative of people to write to persons 
in charge, voicing opinions which may or may not be contrary. We 
would hope these letters are read and even considered in final 
decisions. In this particular vein, the local media have published 
remarks allegedly attributed to Mr. Charles Biggio. These concern 
the statement or remarks about the Justice Department never has been 
reversed on the subject of divestiture. If this is true, I think the 
word infallible might apply to this person. If this is true, I think 
the person in question should be working two or three planes above 
where he/she now is.
    It is quite obvious that Mt. Cranmore has been turned around. It 
is also quite obvious that I cannot understand a forced divestiture 
which would be so harmful to the people in a small area of New 
Hampshire.

        Very truly yours,
William J. Denning.

T.M. Egbert, Jr.

July 9, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Les Otten, with his American Skiing Company, 
is trying to revitalize a large part of the U.S. ski industry which 
has been flat for a number of years.
    If there ever was a case that called for ``benign neglect'' on 
the part of the Justice Department, this is it.
    The agreement requiring divestiture of Cranmore Mountain in 
North Conway, N.H. should be rethought. Cranmore is a small ski 
area. For the past 15 years or so, small, independent ski areas have 
either 1) grown bigger or 2) linked up with larger companies or 3) 
gone out of business. There are no other alternatives.
    Cranmore, as you certainly know, had been struggling for years 
and was in the hands of its bankers. Otten bought it last year, 
revived it with substantial new investment and would have been able 
to keep it going as part of the Attitash Bear Peak complex.
    Your divestiture decision takes Cranmore backwards.
    If anyone can be found to buy it from Otten, Cranmore will be 
faced with the same insurmountable problems that it had previously--
trying to compete with the larger ski operations in the North 
Conway--Western Maine market. Cranmore is unable to stand alone. 
This is an established fact.
    Consequently, your well-intended efforts to preserve competition 
will have exactly the opposite effect. Moreover, the demise of 
Cranmore will cause serious economic hardship to dozens of 
businesses in the area and to property-owners whose condominiums 
next to a defunct ski hill will be next to worthless.
    Moreover, your spokeswoman who laid great emphasis on the need 
to preserve skier discounts, displayed a severe lack of expertise. 
Discounts do not drive the ski business. Terrain, snowmaking, 
grooming, skier services and amenities are what count with skiers 
and what they are willing to pay for. Small ski areas are simply 
unable to provide these at competitive levels.
    It appears that the decision calling for divestiture is based on 
outdated and unrealistic assumptions. I urge you to reconsider the 
decision and to put it on ``hold''; then to dig deeply into the 
facts of the ski industry. If you do, you will find that it makes 
sense to rescind the divestiture agreement.

[[Page 56017]]

    That would enable you to observe what happens in the next few 
years. Then, if you find that the American Skiing Co. is, in fact, 
hindering competition, you can take corrective action.
    The action you have taken this year is, at best, premature. At 
worst, it will kill Cranmore, not preserve it. It will lessen 
competition, not promote it.

        Sincerely,
T.M. Egbert, Jr.,
Former member, Board of Directors, Attitash Ski Lift Co.

Henry DiRico

July 10, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
1404 H Street, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is unfortunate that the members of the 
Justice Department's merger task force have decided to exercise 
their authority to limit the potential for monopolistic practices in 
the New Hampshire ski industry. Please note emphasis on the word 
``potential'' for the following reasons:

LBO would own only 25% of the New England ski market.
Competition from Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, which abut the 
small state of New Hampshire, is fierce.
The government has in place price control mechanisms through state-
owned ski areas--Mt. Sunapee and Cannon Mountain.
The fact that there are no single destination ski areas in New 
England to compete with areas such as Aspen, Breckenridge, Tahoe, 
Jackson Hole, Snow Bird, Steamboat, Sun Valley, etc.
Many New England ski owners, Les Otten is an exception, have had a 
very real struggle just to remain solvent and do not have the 
resources to make significant investments.

    Perhaps the larger issue is not competition but employment in 
New England ski towns. Government officials should look at what the 
real conditions are before taking actions which will restrict the 
economy.
    It is very disturbing to note the overreach of Washington 
officials at a time when New England has been fortunate to find 
someone with the interest and commitment to turn it into a major 
player in the ski industry.

        Sincerely,
Henry DiRico.

Fred and Milly Pereira

July 11, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
 Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is with deep concern that we write this 
letter regarding the Department of Justice's recent divestiture 
ruling on LBO's forced sale of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, New 
Hampshire. Hopefully, you are aware of the history of Mt. Cranmore 
in the Mount Washington Valley. Not only is it of historic value, 
but the financial history in recent years has not been the best. We 
have skied the area for years and feel its impact in the Valley. 
This mountain cannot stand on its own. The comparison of Mt. 
Cranmore to the other areas is not an equal comparison. This 
mountain is a small intermediate mountain, that until Les Otten, was 
about to close. The package of including it with Attitash and Sunday 
River as a combo ticket and as an advertising program during the 
past year, has brought new life to the mountain and the valley.
    We would greatly appreciate if you would reconsider your 
decision regarding this mountain. It needs the strong and 
knowledgeable leadership of LBO. Many of us who live in the Mass. 
and Rhode Island area would rather have the opportunities to ski a 
progressive area with a future than a discounted, old and perhaps 
closed mountain.
    For the communities of the area and the skiers of New England 
please take a second look at this decision!!!

        Thank you,
Fred and Milly Pereira,
392 Brenda Lane, Franklin, MA 02038 and Box 1054 Eidelweiss, NH 03849.s

Richard F. Hickey

July 11, 1996.
Mr. Craig Conrath, Chief,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Departments of Justice, 
1401 H Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.
    Dear Mr. Conrath, I own a home in Bartlett, New Hampshire and 
ski in the Mount Washington Valley nearly every winter weekend and 
have done so for the past six years. I am concerned over the 
Department's decision to permit the merger of Leslie Otten's 
operations with those of Ski Ltd. only if the Mt. Cranmore and 
Waterville Valley ski areas are divested. I don't see how this will 
improve competition, such as it might exist in the ski industry. My 
concern is that divestiture will be soon followed by the collapse of 
both divestees resulting in fewer job opportunities in the region 
and fewer reasons why people would come here to spend their dollars 
and improve the economy.
    I have no interest, financial or otherwise in Mr. Otten's 
operations or in Ski, Ltd. I regularly ski at Wildcat Mountain and 
ski at Cranmore and Attitash/Bear Peak infrequently. My observations 
and opinions are only those of a part-time resident of the area and 
as a citizen concerned with the financial well-being of the area's 
residents who do not have a wealth of job opportunities.
    It seems to me that ski areas in Northern New England compete 
not only with each other but also with resorts closer to 
Massachusetts and Connecticut and with ski areas in New York. Most 
avid New England skiers also ski in the Rockies, many on an annual 
basis. New England areas surely lose some local business to the 
Western ski areas and get very little business from foreign skiers. 
(If you have ever skied in Colorado, you surely noticed the large 
numbers of skiers from all over the world who regularly take their 
ski vacations in the Rockies).
    Ski areas not only compete with one another but with other 
attractions for the leisure dollar. Ski areas visits are declining, 
not growing. Within the Mount Washington Valley area, the downhill 
ski areas must compete with far less expensive cross-country skiing, 
ice climbing, trekking, snowmobiling, etc. It seems to me that the 
department may be overlooking these claims on the tourist dollar 
when it tries to define competition. Downhill skiing is just one 
winter activity in search of the available leisure expenditure.
    Most New England areas, certainly Cranmore and Waterville 
Valley, are small and find it difficult to invest in the essentials 
of modern skiing--high speed lifts and technologically advanced snow 
making equipment. Likewise they are unable to mount significant 
advertising campaigns to attract patrons from near and far. Also, 
these small areas do not have the lodging and restaurant facilities 
that would add to their economic strength and which are expected by 
tourists today.
    It seems to me that Les Otten was trying to create that economic 
mass necessary to lure tourists to the area and to expose the 
attractiveness of this region to non-skiers. He was offering his 
customers options to ski several different mountains on a convenient 
ticket system. He has been willing to support his own marketing 
concepts with his own money. An interesting by-product of his effort 
has been developing an awareness of the necessity of changing the 
way the ski business markets itself if it is going to continue to 
compete for the consumer's leisure dollar.
    The ski business brings business to this region which needs 
employment opportunities for its residents. Needless to say, more 
visitors to the Valley improve the economy for all the local 
enterprises. Les Otten purchased Cranmore when, I believe, it was 
all but bankrupt. He invested a lot of money in improving its 
equipment and facilities. I can't imagine that in this day and age 
there is someone who can run that mountain profitably as a stand-
alone facility.
    The Mount Washington Valley has already lost some of its appeal 
to families with the bankruptcy of Black Mountain. If Cranmore also 
fails, it will take with it thousands of annual skier visits. Its 
passing would be another reason why people don't have to come here 
in the wintertime. This areas is not a casual drive from Boston or 
Hartford. Maintaining the area's economic base requires convincing 
people that there's lots of great activities awaiting them at the 
end of a three, four, five or six hour drive.
    I don't think the Department's decision really improves the 
consumer's competitive options in as much as it takes a very narrow 
view of the position of downhill skiing in the universe of 
competitors for the consumer dollar. It seems to me that the ski 
industry in this area and the economy of the Mount Washington Valley 
needs operations with financial muscle and creativity. I don't think 
they work in todays economy and I don't think the Department should 
continue to support an antiquated concept of competition within the 
industry.


[[Page 56018]]


        Sincerely,
Richard F. Hickey,
9 Metacomment Road, Scituate, MA 02066.
cc: Hon. William Zeliff.

Miriam Regan

July 11, 1996.
    Dear Ms. Bingaman: Please seriously consider the views of local 
residents of Mt. Cranmore re the divestiture order against L.B.O.
    We see no threat to competition in the N.H. ski industry. Mt. 
Cranmore is a particularly historical mountain and employs hundreds 
of local residents, offers school children free skiing and is 
geographically convenient to the local town. SAVE Mt. Cranmore.
Miriam Regan,
Box 345, Intervale, NY 03845.

June 26, 1996.
    Please reverse the decision re Mt. Cranmore in Kortle Conway. 
LBO has helped the economy of this tourist valley and this antitrust 
is a blow to all.
Miriam Regan.

Sally Hindson

July 11, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is with deep concern that we write this 
letter regarding the Department of Justice's recent divestiture 
ruling on LBO's forced sale of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, New 
Hampshire. Hopefully, you are aware of the history or Mt. Cranmore 
in Mount Washington Valley. Not only is it of historic value, but 
the financial history in recent years has not been the best. We have 
skied the area for years and feel its impact in the Valley. This 
mountain cannot stand on its own. The comparison of Mt. Cranmore to 
the other areas is not an equal comparison. This mountain is a small 
intermediate mountain, that until Les Otten, was about to close. The 
package of including it with Attitash and Sunday River as a combo 
ticket and as an advertising program during the past year, has 
brought new life to the mountain and the valley.
    We would greatly appreciate if you would reconsider your 
decision regarding this mountain. It needs the strong and 
knowledgeable leadership of LBO. Many of us who live in the Mass. 
and Rhode Island area would rather have the opportunities to ski a 
progressive area with a future than a discounted old and perhaps 
closed mountain.
    For the communities of the area and the skiers of New England 
please take a second look at this decision!!!

        Thank you,
Sally Hindson.

Dennis J. Holland and Marcia A. Burchstead

July 12, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Unlike many other letters you will be 
receiving on the matter of the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore by LBO, I 
am in full support of the action taken by you and other members of 
the Merger Task Force.
    I am the past president of the Innitou Ski Club located in Glen, 
NH and since January 1993 a homeowner, property taxpayer and voter 
in the town of Bartlett, NH. I along with the other members of the 
ski club was opposed to Les Otten's purchase of Mt. Cranmore last 
year.
    Mt. Cranmore is a ski area full of history and heritage to the 
area. It is a family ski area and has served the needs of the Mount 
Washington Valley residents and school children since it opened in 
1938. Hannes Schneider, Carroll Reed, Harvey Dow Gibson and others 
made this ski area a landmark among ski areas in the United States. 
I am afraid they would not be so proud of their mountain if they 
could see what has happened all in the name of progress.
    Prior to LBO purchasing the mountain, previous owners had 
dismantled the Skimobile, a unique lift and a part of skiing 
history. A modern base lodge was erected in place of the log 
structure.
    Last year LBO saw fit to take down the mid-station double chair 
and replace it with a high-speed detachable quad. He also hiked the 
price of lift tickets to $10, for both weekday and weekend tickets! 
Quite a jump for families to absorb. Discount vouchers for ski club 
members were eliminated His public relations flack said and I quote, 
``Discount lift tickets are not in our vocabulary!'' What arrogance! 
The long standing, tradition of the ``Mountain Meisters,'' racing 
program for adults in the valley was also to be eliminated but this 
caused such an uproar that it was quickly restored. The cost of the 
ski program for area school children was also increased depriving 
some of the experience of learning a new sport and getting exercise. 
The children's ski school eliminated its practice of photo id tags 
and security cards for parents to pick-up children at the end of the 
day.
    The previous year while under bank ownership, Mr. Ken Lydecker, 
managed the area and brought renewed goodwill to the valley. He 
donated and installed beautiful holiday wreath decorations to 
downtown North Conway, hosted the NCAA national cross country races 
at the mountain when nearby Jackson Ski Touring was flooded out and 
the races almost had to be canceled, and provided artificial snow 
for the snowmobilers ride-in in the valley which would have been a 
bust due to a lack of natural snow.
    This is the kind of ski area Mt. Washington Valley needs and 
deserves, not a cookie cutter, mass produced, clone of Sunday River.
    I know that several individuals have stepped forward and 
expressed an interest in operating Mt. Cranmore. I hope that your 
agency will give them the opportunity to restore Mt. Cranmore to the 
adults and children of the valley and the skiers who come from 
throughout New England to experience affordable family skiing.
        Sincerely,
Dennis J. Holland and Marcia A. Burchstead,
35 Skyline Drive, P.O. Box 826, Intervale, NH, 03845.
July 13, 1996.

George J.R. Sauer

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am a property owner at #17 Old Bartlett Road 
directly across from Mt. Cranmore Ski Area.
    I am very upset by your divestiture order which forces Les Otten 
to sell Mt. Cranmore. He is welcomed and needed by the community.
    Please reconsider your decision.

        Sincerely yours,
George J.R. Sauer,
45 Fuller St., Dedham, MA 02026.

John C. Conniff

July 13, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, N.W., Suite 4000, Washington, DC 20530

Re: Ski Resort Merger

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am a retired businessman and an active skier 
for sixty years. I skied at Mt. Cranmore, NH in the early days of 
American skiing, and I still ski there today.
    Please, I urge you to allow the American Skiing Company to 
retain ownership of Mt. Cranmore. This would be in the best interest 
of the Town of North Conway, the many commercial establishments that 
depend on a successful ski area, and most important we the skiing 
public in New England. This will not, in any way, lessen 
competition. Mt. Cranmore needs The American Skiing Company if it is 
to survive.
    A few years ago the Mt. Cranmore Ski Area went into bankruptcy. 
The ski company struggled for a long time and the facilities on the 
mountain were run-down and obsolete. The management was in no 
position to borrow the large amount of money it would take to 
modernize the mountain. When LBO Enterprises purchased Mt. Cranmore 
everyone cheered. Here was a company with skilled management and the 
financial strength to put this modest size ski area back on its 
feet. In just two or three years they invested in new equipment, 
offered the public attractive programs, and started to turn things 
around.
    I am asking that you reconsider your decision about Mt. Cranmore 
and allow the American Skiing Company to retain ownership. This will 
in fact be good for competition, everyone in the Town of North 
Conway, and we skiers.
    You may call me anytime if you think I can be of assistance in 
helping you with your final decision.

      Sincerely,
John C. Conniff,
(413) 567-8767.

Charles Morse, Jr.

July 16, 1996
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force


[[Page 56019]]


Subject: D.O.J. divestiture order relative to LBO Cranmore Ski Area

    Gentlemen: I respectfully request that you reconsider your 
actions in ordering LBO Enterprises to divest of the Cranmore Ski 
Area. As a senior citizen pass holder, my pass allowed me to ski at 
either Attitash Bear Peak or Cranmore, since both are owned by LBO.
    The opportunity to choose makes it possible for me to enjoy the 
best conditions of the day. North facing Attitash may be 
uncomfortable on a cold windy day, but the alternative, Cranmore 
with its southern exposure can be a better choice. Conversely, on a 
warm sunny day Attitash becomes the mountain of choice. Should these 
two areas become owned by separate entities, I would no longer have 
the luxury of choice and thus, my skiing pleasure would be damaged.
    It should also be noted that LBO has done an outstanding job of 
upgrading Cranmore's facilities and has consistently produced 
outstanding snow conditions.
    Apparently, the D.O.J. is concerned that LBO holdings will 
lessen competition resulting in higher ski ticket pricing. In the 
Mt. Washington Valley Area, there are six ski areas, Wild Cat, Black 
Mtn, Shawnee Peak, Bretton Woods, Attitash and Cranmore. It would 
seem that the existence of four independent competitors, within a 
few miles of the subject areas, would exert pricing pressure which 
would keep LBO area prices competitive.
    I respectfully ask your reconsideration of your position and 
allow Cranmore to remain a part of LBO Enterprises subject to your 
review another year.

    Sincerely,
 Charles Morse, Jr.,
19 Green St., Newbury, Mass. 01951.

McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, Professional Association

July 16, 1996.
Anne K. Bingaman,
Asst. Atty. General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Ms. Bingaman: I am writing to you with respect to the 
recent newspaper articles that the Justice Department has required, 
as a condition for acquisition of SKI Limited, that LBO sell its 
interests in Mt. Cranmore in North Conway and Waterville Valley in 
Campton, New Hampshire.
    As a matter of introduction, please understand that for over 
thirty (30) years, I served as General Counsel and as a Director of 
Mt. Attitash Lift Corporation in Bartlett, New Hampshire. In July, 
1994, LBO acquired the stock of Mt. Attitash. Since that time, the 
acquirer has constructed two lifts and constructed several new 
trails at Attitash. This represents the first substantial capital 
investment in Attitash, and in any Mount Washington ski area, in 
many years.
    As someone who was vitally involved on a daily basis in the ski 
industry over years, I understand that industry far better than 
anyone from Washington, DC, no matter how well intentioned or well-
educated that person may be. I can tell you that as a Director and 
officer of Attitash, it was a challenging task to keep that 
operation out of the hands of the Bankruptcy Courts. We struggled, 
and struggled, and struggled for years to survive. From time to 
time, we made capital improvements and through good management, we 
were able to survive. At the time that we sold our operation to LBO, 
there was no other buyer on the horizon. We sold the property for 
what we believed was a fair consideration for our shareholders.
    As a purchaser, Mr. Otten and his corporation were under no 
obligation to make any improvements at any particular time. We were 
extremely pleased to see that in the first six months of his 
ownership, he installed a quad-chairlift and constructed three new 
trails. During the second twelve months of his ownership, Mr. Otten 
installed a high-speed quad, three additional chairs, and a 10,000 
sq. foot base building, parking area, etc. All of this was done in a 
first-class manner.
    The beneficiaries of these investments are not just the people 
who ski in that area, but the entire population of that area. 
Suddenly, people began to spruce up their motels and restaurants, 
invest funds in those facilities, all in anticipation of the 
additional passenger traffic that these investments would 
undoubtedly generate. I don't think anyone has been disappointed in 
these investments, at least until now. In the summer of 1995, Mr. 
Otten acquired Mt. Cranmore in North Conway. This was a facility 
which was one of the very first major ski areas in the United 
States. Unfortunately, the ski area had long since lost its 
attractiveness to the skiing public and had fallen on very bad 
times. For the past several years, the ski area has been operated by 
Bay Bank, which received a deed in lieu of foreclosure from its last 
owners.
    Similar to the experience at Attitash, Mr. Otten and his 
corporation not only acquired the area, but immediately installed a 
high-speed quad, made other improvements in the area, and began to 
breathe life into what many believed to be a fatally ill ski area. I 
can tell you as someone who lives in the Mount Washington Valley and 
knows many individuals in that area, that this effort by Mr. Otten 
was the most significant step in many, many years. New Hampshire was 
extremely hard-hit by the recession of the late '80s. The area most 
hard-hit was the real estate market and I believe the most hard-hit 
geographical area was northern New Hampshire. Suddenly, Les Otten 
came to town and started to invest in an area that everyone else 
thought was fatally ill, if not dead. This was an extremely 
important move psychologically.
    As an attorney, I do not understand the position of the Justice 
Department, but I am not well enough acquainted with the intricacies 
of these issues to begin to comprehend the problems anticipated. All 
I can tell you is that there are four major areas in the Mount 
Washington Valley of New Hampshire, namely, Attitash, Black 
Mountain, Cranmore and Wildcat. In addition, there is King Pine Ski 
Area some 15 miles south. For a single operator to operate both 
Cranmore and Attitash makes a lot of sense and provides an economy 
of scale which makes this operation profitable. Standing alone, 
Cranmore has not been able to make a profit or even survive.
    The decision to require Mr. Otten and his corporation to 
jettison Cranmore is simply a very bad decision, both from the point 
of view of ski area operations and the point of view of the 
community. The community desperately needs Les Otten to own and 
operate Cranmore. Anything that could be done in this regard to 
assure that that will continue to happen will be of great benefit to 
this portion of the State of New Hampshire.
    I would be more than pleased to answer any questions or supply 
any specific information that you require.
    Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

      Sincerely yours,
Jack B. Middleton.
cc: The Honorable Charles F. Bass, M.C., The Honorable William H. 
Zeliff, Jr., Senator Judd Gregg, Senator Robert C. Smith

Robert & Kim Adair

July 16, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, U.S. Department of Justice--Anti-Trust 
Division, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Ski Area Merger

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing in strong opposition to the 
Justice Department's recent decision to require The American Skiing 
Company (merger of LBO Holdings and SKI Limited) to divest two of 
its ski areas.
    Cranmore has been a vital part of the Mt. Washington Valley's 
economic picture since the 1930s. In recent years, its financial 
status, and to some degree, that of the Valley, has been strained. 
Since LBO's acquisition of Cranmore in the summer of 1995, 
significant improvements have been made to the resort, including 
installation of a badly-needed high speed quad chairlift. As a 
result, the Mt. Washington Valley as a whole has benefited from 
these improvements.
    LBO operated both Cranmore and Attitash/Bear Peak last winter 
and offered fairly priced tickets that were interchangeable at both 
mountains. The flexibility of being able to ski at two 
characteristically different ski areas offered skiers an excellent 
choice given the variable weather and snow conditions typical of New 
England. The joining of these two mountains created a stronger, 
better ski environment for locals and visitors alike. Many people, 
including myself, bought tickets which were valid for a two year 
period. The value of unused tickets has been diminished by your 
decision.
    The Department of Justice's claim that the LBO/SKI merger would 
diminish competition is absurd, and hints of a decision made by 
bureaucrats unfamiliar with our local area and the ski industry in 
general. Ski area competition in the Mt. Washington Valley is very 
healthy and currently consists of King Pine, Shawnee Peak, and Black 
Mountain, all comparable in size to Cranmore; and Loon, Cannon, 
Wildcat, and Bretton Woods, which are comparable to Attitash/Bear 
Peak. The potential of higher prices as a result of this merger is 
clouded by one simple fact--if prices are too high, people will ski 
elsewhere. The quality and commitment LBO has made to producing the

[[Page 56020]]

best ski conditions is the reason no one wants them forced out.
    Please reverse your decision regarding this merger. The 
community has a much better handle on the value of LBO's ownership 
of Cranmore--we live here and can understand and appreciate what 
this organization has contributed to our area. Please don't ruin 
this for us.

      Sincerely,
Robert E. Adair.

William D. Quinn

July 18, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Consent Decree Les Otten/LBO

    Dear Sir: Your actions with regard to the above noted decree is 
without a doubt the single best option in this case. Les Otten is no 
less a preditor than Bill Gates, with concerns only for profit, not 
for the quality of life. Your action will help maintain the quality 
of life here, in particular, the blocking of the continuing downward 
trend of wages brought on when one company controls the region. 
Stick by your decision and do not let political parasites like 
Zeliff, Gregg and Smith turn a great decision from good to bad.

      Very truly yours,
William D. Quinn,
P.O. Box 21, Madison, N.H. 03849.

Alvin J. Coleman & Son, Inc.

July 18, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: As a businessman located in the Mount 
Washington Valley, I want to express my disappointment in the 
Department of Justice' ruling concerning the divestiture of Mount 
Cranmore from the American Skiing Company (formerly LBO 
Enterprises).
    The economy in the Valley has been very sluggish, to say the 
least, in the past several years. We were all very excited about 
LBO's plans for Mount Cranmore and were anticipating renewed growth 
in the region. The decision by the Department of Justice is a hard 
blow to an area which depends so heavily on year round tourism.
    I urge you to reconsider the recent ruling and take into 
consideration the impact on our local economy on the sale of an 
entity which up until very recently has been struggling financially 
for years.
    Please feel free to call, if you would like to discuss this 
matter.

      Sincerely,
Calvin J. Coleman,
President.
cc: William H. Zeliff.

Tech Works

July 16, 1996.
John W. Van Lonkhuyzen,
Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, City Center Bldg.--Room 4000, 1401 
H Street NW, Washington, DC 20530

Re: U.S. v. American Skiing Co. & S-K-I, Ltd. (C.A. No. 96-1308)

    Dear Mr. Van Lonkhuyzen: Thanks for all your time in our phone 
conversation last week, and thanks for your letter of July 12, 1996, 
including the enclosures on HHI and DOJ's 4/2/92 ``Horizontal Merger 
Guidelines''. They should be very helpful in understanding Justice's 
position on this matter.
    For your information, I have enclosed my letter dated June 30, 
1996 to Mr. Conrath. I imagine you would have seen this eventually, 
but I wanted you to have a copy now in case we have further 
conversations.
    My letter was written before I had fully thought through the 
pro-competitive aspects of this merger. As we discussed on Friday, 
ASC's ability to draw from a much wider area by reason of offerings 
including Cranmore along with its sister slopes, holds the 
possibility of huge savings for the company. More skiers during mid-
week could do a lot to hold down prices for skiers of all types 
(day, weekend and week long) from all locations. It is a potential 
that may be unique to ASC (LBO) due to its ownership of other nearby 
slopes. I'm not sure Justice properly focused on this aspect.
    As you know, the Town of Conway has formed a committee to 
respond to what has transpired. I believe that committee will expand 
upon this and other matters of concern.

    Yours truly,
David S. Urey,
cc: D.M. Laws.

Maryellen Maguire LaRoche

July 23, 1996.
Craig Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force: Anti-Trust Division, US Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am a resident of Conway, NH and this letter 
is in response to the US Department of Justice recent decision 
regarding the American Skiing Company's acquisition of SKI Limited. 
I am also an avid skier for over 30 years and a condominium owner at 
Sunday River Ski Resort in Newry, Maine, a property built and 
managed by LBO (nka American Skiing Company).
    I am in full agreement with the Justice Department decision 
regarding the American Skiing Company acquisition. It is my 
understanding that the decision regarding the sale of Waterville 
Valley and Cranmore Mountain was developed by LBO to meet Justice 
Department concerns regarding antitrust. Cranmore is essentially 
LBO's weak resort, purchased a year ago at a bargain basement price, 
and was not a great sacrifice in terms of market share control and 
the profit potential of the larger deal which was completed as 
scheduled. The American Skiing Company could have chosen another ski 
area, it was their option to offer the sale of Cranmore. Antitrust 
issues continue to be an area of great concern, as well as the 
tremendous debt ratio absorbed by the American Skiing Company to 
acquire these other large ski areas in a volatile, weather 
dependent, and often low profit margin industry. Ski areas drive the 
winter economy of Northern New England and many of the acquired ski 
areas have demonstrated major commitments to their communities 
economic health and have also developed year round operations. It 
remains to be seen if the American Skiing Company will be as 
committed to the economic development of these communities as their 
previous owners demonstrated. Their short attention span regarding 
Cranmore is not a good example of a commitment to the Conway 
community.
    The amazing piece of this puzzle is the local press campaign 
slamming the Justice Department for doing its job. It is well known 
by skiers and owners at Sunday River Resort that LBO's major goal is 
to control the New England market share, control ticket prices and 
eliminate discounting. All other claims, such as potential lower 
ticket prices due to economies of scale, are typical LBO marketing 
hype. Just listen to their ski reports: LBO resorts always have 6 
more inches of snow than your house at the base of the mountain; its 
amazing how brazen a company they are in terms of marketing hype. 
LBO only discounts when their competition is discounting and 
impacting their skier visits and profit margin. Thank you for 
preventing an LBO takeover of New Hampshire ski resorts. You were 
right on target. I sincerely hope you will continue to monitor the 
development of the American Skiing Company.

      Sincerely,
Maryellen LaRoche.

Locust Hill

July 25, 1996
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing in support of the continued 
ownership of Mount Cranmore by Less Otten and LOB. Cranmore is an 
important part of Conway's economic mix. It is the center point of 
our winter business. As a tourist attraction it can be, as it has 
been in past years, a major destination for our summer and winter 
visitors.
    Cranmore is, in the scheme of ski areas, a small area. It has a 
limited base of skiers; families and beginning skiers. But along 
with Attitash, it becomes part of a very attractive package. The 
economics of a small area these days is not a rosy picture. With 
high insurance costs, demands for bigger and better snowmaking, and 
the costs of adverting, economics of scale can make an area a viable 
business.
    Cranmore has not had responsible management for many years and 
has twice been on the brink of bankruptcy. Now, with an owner who is 
a solid business man and understands skiing and the skier, Cranmore 
finally has a chance to thrive.
    The pricing of tickets, according to the papers, seems to be 
your main concern. The money spent on tickets is discretionary 
money. If people feel that the cost of tickets is too high they will 
not buy them. A business needs purchasers of it's services in order 
to survive. If people stop buying tickets LOB would have to lower 
the ticket costs to lure the skier back.

[[Page 56021]]

    Please leave along what appears to many in the town to be a 
situation which benefits not only Conway but the entire Mount 
Washington Valley.

      Sincerely,
Cynthia B. Briggs,
Selectman, Town of Conway 1989-1995, Planning Board, Town of Conway, 
1995-1999, School Board, Town of Conway 1975-1981, Budget Committee, 
Town of Conway.
copies: Phil Gravink, Pres. Attitash, William Zeliff, U.S. Rep., 
Judd Greg, U.S. Senator, Robert Smith, U.S. Senator.

James H. Hastings

July 31, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H. Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Mt. Cranmore, Conway N.H.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: As a resident of Massachusetts and one who 
skies frequently in the North Conway area, I am submitting my 
coments regarding the proposed divestiture of Mt. Cranmore. Unlike 
other areas in the Country, North Conway has many ski areas in the 
vicinity, all with ownership other than the one currently owning Mt. 
Cranmore and Attitash. Within a one hour drive the following 
independent ski areas are located: Bretton Woods, Cannon. Black, 
Wildcat and King Pine. Additionally, skiers from eastern 
Massachusetts have the option of travelling to the Route 93 side of 
New Hampshire, eastern Maine or Vermont. This type of competition 
does not, in my mind create a monopoly. What is clear however, is 
that operating a ski area takes management expertise and capital, 
both of which have been evident since the current ownership 
purchased Mt. Cranmore.
    During the winter of 1995-1996, I skied at Mt. Cranmore and was 
very pleased with the changes incorporated. These changes made Mt. 
Cranmore a pleasant place to ski, and more importantly contributed 
to the economy of North Conway.
    My concern is that if Mt. Cranmore is forced to be sold to less 
experienced or less capitalized ownership, the mountain and the 
town, would suffer. I ask that you seriously consider alternatives 
to forcing divesture of Mt. Cranmore.

      Very truly your,
James H. Hastings,
55 Stetson Street, Bradford, Massachusetts 01835.

John B. Pepper

Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, Washington, DC 20530

Re: Cranmore Mountain Ski Area, North Conway, NH

    Dear Sir: Our family learned with great concern of the consent 
decree to which LBO Enterprises was forced to agree in order to 
accomplish the merger with S.K.I. Ltd. requiring the divestiture of 
Cranmore and Waterville Valley.
    We are not as familiar with the Waterville situation as to 
whether it is possible for this area to be successful on its own or 
under some other ownership.
    We are very familiar with the Cranmore situation and have very 
serious doubts that it can be successful without continuing the 
enlightened management of LBO.
    This area was on the verge of being unable to continue in 
business and might well have gone the way of other small ski areas 
in our area had not Les Otten come to the rescue with new management 
and capital to rescue it from the brink.
    It is not only capital that is required for a successful 
operation of a ski area but also enlightened management and that 
type of management is exactly what LBO brought to this area that had 
been slowly dying over the last several years.
    LBO also brought leadership in the important vacation industry 
which is so important to New Hampshire but also financial strength 
and marketing skills that are so much more successful when combined 
with several other regional ski businesses.
    The whole thrust of LBO marketing has been to bring more 
vacationers to New England not only from the U.S. but also from 
Europe.
    There is no lack of other competition in Northern New England so 
that any concern about the public suffering from multiple ownership 
of areas is unfounded. Even in Mount Washington Valley this 
competition exists but all local business is convinced that LBO will 
benefit all business in the valley--even other ski areas not under 
LBO ownership.
    We emplore that you reexamine this unfair conclusion of the 
Justice Department. We ask that every consideration be given to 
reversing this decision involving Cranmore Mountain.

      Sincerely,
John B. Pepper,
Alice W. Pepper.

Prescilla A. Morse

July 16, 1996.
Subject: D.O.J. divestiture order relative to LBO Cranmore Ski Area

    Gentleman: I respectfully request that you reconsider your 
actions in ordering LBO Enterprises to divest of the Cranmore Ski 
Area. As a senior citizen pass holder, my pass allowed me to ski at 
either Attitash Bear Peak or Cranmore, since both are owned by LBO.
    The opportunity to choose makes it possible for me to enjoy the 
best conditions of the day. North facing Attitash may be 
uncomfortable on a cold windy day, but the alternative, Cranmore 
with its southern exposure can be a better choice. Conversely, on a 
warm sunny day Attitash becomes the mountain of choice. Should these 
two areas become owned by separate entities, I would no longer have 
the luxury of choice and thus, my skiing pleasure would be damaged.
    It should also be noted that LBO has done an outstanding job of 
upgrading Cranmore's facilities and has consistently produced 
outstanding snow conditions.
    Apparently, the D.O.J. is concerned that LBO holdings will 
lessen competition resulting in higher ski ticket pricing. In the 
Mt. Washington Valley Area, there are six ski areas, Wild Cat, Black 
Mtn, Shawnee Peak, Bretton Woods, Attitiash and Cranmore. It would 
seem that the existence of four independent competitors, within a 
few miles of the subject areas, would exert pricing pressure which 
would keep LBO area prices competitive.
    I respectfully ask your reconsideration of your position and 
allow Cranmore to remain a part of LBO Enterprises subject to your 
review another year.

      Sincerely,
Priscilla A. Morse,
19 Green St., Newbury, MA 01951.

Mr. Peter B. Edwards

August 1, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief--Merger Task Force, Anti-Trust Division, US Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H St. NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: LBO Holdings, Inc./Ski, Ltd.

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing in regards to the requirement by 
the Justice Dept. that LBO Holdings divest itself of Mt. Cranmore. 
As a skier and consumer of the skier services that LBO provides in 
the Mt. Washington Valley. I am firmly in opposition to the 
divestiture requirement. I believe this opinion is shared by many 
other skiers both in the valley, and outside.
    LBO Holdings has been a skier's friend. They invest in the 
mountains they run and provide a quality skiing experience. One need 
only to observe what has happened at Mt. Cranmore in the year since 
LBO has owned the business. They improved the mountain tremendously 
and lift prices have not increased out of line with other areas.
    It is my understanding that the anti-trust activities of the 
Justice Department are to protect the consumer or other parties from 
unfair competition. There is still plenty of competition in the Mt. 
Washington Valley. There are 6 ski areas within a 20 mile radius of 
North Conway. LBO owns only 2 of these. Additionally, LBO has not 
exhibited any kind of predatory pricing practices. What is good for 
one ski area in terms of traffic has benefits for other neighboring 
ski areas.
    I would be pleased to testify in this matter in support of the 
effort to drop the Mt. Cranmore divestiture. Thank you for your 
consideration.

      Yours truly,
Peter B. Edwards

Glass Graphics, Inc.

August 1, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief--Merger Task Force, Anti-Trust Division, US Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Please add my name to the list of those 
businesses in the Mt. Washington Valley who strongly oppose the 
requirement that LBO Holdings sell Mt. Cranmore in order to complete 
the merger with Ski, Ltd.
    This makes absolutely no sense to me. LBO is hardly the kind of 
business which the Anti-Trust regulations were meant to deal with. 
Les Otten and his company have been a friend of consumers and 
competitors alike.

[[Page 56022]]

He has invested heavily in Mt. Cranmore and this has benefitted all 
the ski areas by bringing in more skiers to the Mt. Washington 
Valley. Just ask them.
    I would urge you to hold local hearings on this matter to hear 
from consumers and competitors. The overwhelming opinion will be in 
favor of allowing LBO to retain Mt. Cranmore.

      Yours truly,
David Peterson,
Pres.

Miriam L. Regan

Craig W. Conrath,
Merger Task Force, Antitrust Div.

    Dear Sir: Please use your influence to reverse the decision on 
the divestiture of Cranmore in No. Conway, N.H.
    The accessible location of the ski area to the town is 
exceptional and all important to our local economy.

      Sincerely,
Miriam L. Regan

Pam and Bob Fisher

3 August, 96.
    Dear Craig Conrath: Grateful for your prompt reply to my earlier 
letter and sympathetic with the flood of mail you are doubtless 
receiving, I shall be brief. It is the economy of scale which 
enables Les Otten to continue to provide quality skiing at the 
lowest possible price. This we well know as 70+ skiers who can 
afford to ski the Cranmore-Attitash-Bear P complex economically. 
Having skied-raced-coached in this valley since the '40s, both my 
wife and I, our children, and our grandchildren are intensely aware 
of the roller-coaster character of ski area finances and how they 
impact consumer quality experience. It is our non-expert opinion 
that ``keeping Cranmore under the American Skiing Company's umbrella 
(will best) protect and bolster the Valley's tourism dependent 
economy.'' Again, thank you for attending.

      Sincerely,
Pam & Bob Fisher,
615 Potter Road, Center Conway, NH 03813.

Christopher J. Cote

July 29, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is with deep concern that we write this 
letter regarding the Department of Justice's recent divestiture 
ruling on LBO's forced sale of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, New 
Hampshire. Hopefully, you are aware of the history of Mt. Cranmore 
in the Mount Washington Valley. Not only is it of historic value, 
but the financial history in recent years has not been the best. We 
have skied the area for years and feel its impact in the Valley. 
This mountain cannot stand on its own. The comparison of Mt. 
Cranmore to the other areas is not an equal comparison. This 
mountain is a small intermediate mountain that, until Les Otten, was 
about to close. The package of including it with Attitash and Sunday 
River as a combo ticket and as an advertising program during the 
past year, has brought new life to the mountain and the valley.
    We would greatly appreciate it if you would reconsider your 
decision regarding this mountain. It needs the strong and 
knowledgeable leadership of LBO. Many of us who live in the 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island area would rather have the 
opportunities to ski a progressive area with a future than a 
discounted, old and perhaps closed mountain.
    For the communities of the area and the skiers of New England, 
please take a second look at this decision!!!

      Thank you,
Christopher J. Cote,
29 Essex Street, Lowell, MA 01850.

Ronald F. Cote

July 29, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: It is with deep concern that we write this 
letter regarding the Department of Justice's recent divestiture 
ruling on LBO's forced sale of Mt. Cranmore in North Conway, New 
Hampshire. Hopefully, you are aware of the history of Mt. Cranmore 
in the Mount Washington Valley. Not only is it of historic value, 
but the financial history in recent years has not been the best. We 
have skied the area for years and feel its impact in the Valley. 
This mountain cannot stand on its own. The comparison of Mt. 
Cranmore to the other areas is not an equal comparison. This 
mountain is a small intermediate mountain that, until Les Otten, was 
about to close. The package of including it with Attitash and Sunday 
River as a combo ticket and as an advertising program during the 
past year, has brought new life to the mountain and the valley.
    We would greatly appreciate it if you would reconsider your 
decision regarding this mountain. It needs the strong and 
knowledgeable leadership of LBO. Many of us who live in the 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island area would rather have the 
opportunities to ski a progressive area with a future than a 
discounted, old and perhaps closed mountain.
    For the communities of the area and the skiers of New England, 
please take a second look at this decision!!!

      Thank you,
Ronald F. Cote,
Joyce A. Cote, 29 Essex Street, Lowell, MA 01850 & 31 Conway Road, 
Madison, NH.

Maine Turf Co.

August 6, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, US. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing to express my disbelief and 
concern over the ruling from the Justice Department forcing Mr. 
Otten to sell-off Cranmore. I thought the Anti-Trust laws were no 
longer in effect. It is difficult to understand why Otten's small 
portion of the ski market is a threat to our free market economy 
when so many companies control much larger portions in the market 
place. I speak from experience; I raise potatoes for the potato chip 
market. One of my past customers is the Frito-Lay Corporation; a 
subsidiary of PepsiCo. In the mid eighties the Frito buyer 
communicated the company's market strategy. He said Frito-Lay will 
stabilize the chip industry. I asked what that meant. The buyer 
divulged a plan to control the potato chip market. First large 
plants were being built to reduce unit cost. Second, the better 
growers (farmers) will be instructed to sell potatoes exclusively to 
Frito-Lay. Finally, any amount of money would be spent to buy store 
space and run promotions to apply financial pressure against smaller 
manufacturers. Frito wanted my operation to be a part of their team. 
That meant I would no longer sell to other manufacturers.
    That's wrong and I stopped doing business with Frito-Lay. Today, 
Frito-Lay controls at least 60% of the national market. Most of 
their competition is no longer in business. A visit to our local 
Shop & Save is proof; the chip isle is dominated by Frito products 
and they still pay extra for end displays even though they have 
little competition. Their plan worked.
    This is why I find it absurd that the Justice Department is 
going after Mr. Otten while looking the other way as large 
corporations forage at will. Otten invested in vital improvements 
and upgraded management at Cranmore. These improvements are a great 
benefit to the whole community. I don't understand the logic of this 
order to divest.

      Respectfully,
Douglas C. Albert,
President, Albert Farms/Maine Turf Company.

Locust Hill

August 5, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Mt. Cranmore and LBO merger

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I strongly support the continued ownership of 
Mt. Cranmore by LBO Inc.
    I have owned and operated two tourist businesses in North Conway 
over the past 40 years, owning each for 20 years. Until 1975, about 
50% of our business was ski oriented. Since 1975, our winter tourist 
business has steadily eroded--as the fiscal stability of Mt. 
Cranmore has weakened.
    With the purchase of Mt. Cranmore by LBO last year, North Conway 
has been given new hope for its winter season in the future.
    Many (most?) ski areas are marginal business enterprises at 
best. Please leave us with one of the few successful operators--Les 
Otten.

      Sincerely,
Conrad Briggs,
Past President; North Conway Chamber of Commerce, Past President; 
Eastern Slope Ski Club.
c. Phil Gravink

[[Page 56023]]

Hurricane Mtn. Farmhouse

5 August 1996
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I applaud the willingness of the Division to 
gather additional information on the Mount Cranmore divestiture 
order and have some hope that this will lead to a reconsideration. 
My interest is that of a citizen who has lived summers and now 
permanently within a mile of these slopes more than a decade before 
they were purchased by Harvey Gibson. Cranmore is woven into the 
history and present life of this Valley.
    To date I have not seen a statement from your office that 
explains why the action was required prior to approving the merger 
sought by Mr. Otten. Do the data collected and analyzed support a 
conclusion that Otten's share of the skiing market will produce 
higher ticket prices? Does the analysis include the discretionary 
nature of consumer spending for a recreational activity carried 
forward under highly unpredictable and perishable conditions? Does 
the Division consider skiing as an activity high enough in the order 
of consumer importance (i.e., compared to food, fuel, telephone, 
etc.) to make antitrust action necessary?
    If Otten or American Skiing uses its 25% market share of New 
England downhill skiing to boost prices beyond consumer willingness 
to pay, there are many other slopes available in New England and 
even further distant. Cranmore will immediately show a reduction in 
ski runs. There can be no time for ``wait and see''; the snow must 
be sold before it melts. Not only that but downhill skiing already 
has lost its growth potential as other less expensive winter sports 
have developed.
    Has the Division examined the financial statements of Cranmore 
for the last 10 years to determine its profitability? In how many 
years were its property taxes in arrears? Were the electric power 
bills paid on time? Was new and improved lift equipment installed? 
How ``good'' was the snowmaking? Can Cranmore stand alone as a ski 
operation or is it ``assisted'' by being tied to another operation 
such as Attitash thus achieving economies? Isn't there an advantage 
in one company marketing a Valley ski experience? Have the other 
Otten ski operations in Maine and Vermont been checked for the kind 
of conspiracy in restraint of ski recreation that the Division seems 
to anticipate?
    I suggest the Division take a ``second look'' and give greater 
attention to the fragility of downhill ski resorts and of their 
impact on the economic and social life of a mountain area not 
especially known for its great wealth. The capital and business that 
Otten has brought and will bring here can be felt by all residing in 
the Valley.

      Faithfully
Richard A. Ware

Stephen P. Camuso

July 5, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief of Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division--US DOJ, 1401 H 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing concerning the recent action 
taken on the acquisition of Cranmore Mountain in No. Conway, New 
Hampshire by LBO. As a visitor to the Mt. Washington Valley area 
since 1959 and a landowner since 1981, I am very much concerned 
about LBO having to divest themselves of the Mt. Cranmore property.
    Since 1959, we have found skiing to be a great family sport and 
one that is generally carried on by the next generation with their 
families, Such is the case of both my wife and I and now our 
children. We invested in a vacation home in the Valley because of 
its proximity to our Boston area home and the ``family theme'' and 
layout of Mt. Cranmore. In the years that we have skied exclusively 
at Mt. Cranmore there have been three owners before LBO purchased 
the property in 1995. Initially, each owner enthusiastically moved 
forward with new projects to better the area only to run out of 
money after a few years and allow the property to decline over time 
until a new owner could be found.
    It's apparent that the area will only survive with an owner who 
can afford the ups and downs of such a seasonable business. Many of 
us who have supported Mt. Cranmore through these ups and downs 
realize this and were excited with the LBO takeover. They 
immediately went back to basics and invested in such needed things 
as a new septic system for the top of the mountain which allowed for 
the reopening of the restaurant and bathroom facilities--something 
the previous three owners had failed to do. They immediately 
installed a new detachable quad chair which made the mountain 
accessible for evening meals and use in the summer. What we saw was 
a real commitment to bring Mt. Cranmore up to the standards of the 
other LBO properties.
    We find that each ski property has it's own attraction. For 
example, in the 37 years that our family has been skiing in the Mt. 
Washington Valley, we have only visited the other mountains a 
handful of time. One mountain is no threat to another and the 
strength of the whole valley is based on the success of all the 
mountains. We are all aware of the risk involved in the ski 
business. A firm the size of LBO is able to minimize this risk which 
can only be a benefit to those living and working in the Valley as 
well as the property values of second home owners who have invested 
in the area. We look forward with enthusiasm to LBO's continued 
investment in Mt. Cranmore.

      Sincerely,
Stephen P. Camuso,
14 Cranmore Circle, No. Conway, NH 03818.

Alfred C. Peters, D.M.D., M.S.W., C.A.C

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I have skied, climbed, and lived in the Mt. 
Washington Valley for over \1/2\ century. The environmental and 
economic integrity of this area is dependent on the viability of Mt. 
Cranmore, Mt. Attitash and Sunday River in Maine.
    Mr. Otten is the one person who is capable of enchancing the 
well-being of our community by uniting these three areas for out 
common well-being.
    Please ``Reverse the Decision.''

      Sincerely,
Alfred C. Peters

National Federation of Independent Business

August 14, 1996
Mr. Craig Conrath
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: NFIB is the largest small business advocacy 
organization in the nation representing over 600,000 small and 
independent business owners.
    One of our members, Brain Hill of Intervale New Hampshire, has 
sent us information regarding the divestiture order pending against 
Les Otten of LBO Enterprises, Inc. If this order is carried out, 
many NFIB members in New Hampshire will be adversely affected. The 
profitability of their small businesses depend on the dollars spent 
by Les Otten to advertise and draw tourists to Cranmore and 
Waterville Valley.
    On behalf of our members, we urge you to reverse your decision 
and cancel the order to divest.
    Thank you for your attention to our comments.

      Sincerely,
Joan M. Moeltner,
Membership Liaison.
cc: Brian Hill.

New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.

August 26, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Anti Trust Division, US Dept. of Justice, 
1401 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: United States v. American Skiing Co. and S-K-I Limited, Civil 
Action No. 96-1308 TJP

    Dear Mr. Conrath: I am writing you to express my strong concern 
over your required divestiture of Mt. Cranmore by LBO. I believe 
that your action will be detrimental to the citizens of the Mount 
Washington Valley, the members of New Hampshire Electric 
Cooperative, and the future of Mt. Cranmore.
    New Hampshire Electric Cooperative is a member owned electric 
distribution utility serving about half the towns in the State of 
NH. We serve a number of ski areas including Mt. Cranmore, 
Waterville Valley, Loon Mt., Attitash, Tenney Mt., Highland Ski 
area, and Black Mountain. We have extensive experience dealing with 
troubled or bankrupt ski areas. We have served on the creditors 
committee for Tenney Mt. We have been chair of the creditors 
committees for Waterville Valley and Black Mountain. We also have 
followed closely the issues related to Mt. Cranmore's bankruptcy.
    We were delighted when LBO (Now ASC) acquired Mt. Cranmore. They 
injected life into a small market Mountain. Their investments 
created jobs and opportunities to a ski area that was struggling. 
Our concern is that your divestiture requirement sets Cranmore 
floundering once again. Going back to the way things were just a few 
short years

[[Page 56024]]

ago would be detrimental to business in the Valley, the employees of 
Cranmore, this Cooperative and the skiers of New Hampshire, Maine 
and New England.
    Having been involved in the Black Mountain and Waterville 
bankruptcies I know that there are limited serious buyers for ski 
areas. There are fewer if any serious buyers with the financial 
means to be successful with a mountain the size of Cranmore. The 
fact is Cranmore was on the market for a long period of time before 
being purchased by LBO. I believe your action amounts to a death 
sentence for Cranmore. I question if a quality buyer will be found 
who will continue with the plans that have already been laid out for 
the mountain. In the long run this will have the opposite impact on 
competition from what you are trying to achieve. One less mountain 
to choose from.
    I take exception with your justifications for this divestiture. 
You focus on the impact on skiers from the states of Maine, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island and ignore the impact 
on New Hampshire's skiers. You taut the specter of higher prices, 
but do not recognize that improved services and expanded facilities 
are the important aspects of the merger. You fail to understand that 
skiers do not make their decision on where to ski based on price 
alone. Ski area conditions, terrain, lift capacity, and amenities 
such as food, lodging, and shopping are all important factors.
    In general, I question the need to divest at all, and especially 
the need to divest of two New Hampshire ski areas. There has to be 
another solution that satisfies your needs. I hope you will try to 
find that solution and I ask you to reconsider your actions and not 
require the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore.

      Sincerely,
Fred C. Anderson,
General Manager/CEO.
cc: James Somerville, Conway Town Manager, PO Box 70, Center Conway, 
NH 03813.

Ronald Barber

August 28, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
US. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC 20503

    Dear Sir: I am taking advantage of the extension of the Public 
comment period to write the D.O.J. in opposition to its divestiture 
order for American Skiing to sell Mt. Cranmore, of N Conway, NH.
    I have been a resident of N Conway for 13 years, and have at 
time worked part-time at Mt. Cranmore, but not within the past 3 
years.
    Mt. Cranmore is viewed almost as a public trust in our area and 
provides employment and recreational opportunities at the core of 
this community.
    Membership in a marketing group such as Attitash-Bear Peak-
Cranmore can insure that Mt. Cranmore can maintain a competitive 
position, and acquire capital and assets with economy of scale.
    Standing alone, Mt. Cranmore doesn't have the size or terrain to 
stack-up favorable against other ski mountain complexes in NH or 
Western Maine, further, Mt. Cranmore's opportunities to expand its 
facilities is fairly limited.
    The overall Mt. Washington Valley region economy stands to gain 
more if our tourism guest's entertainment options are viewed as 
economically healthy enterprises.
    Mt. Cranmore has always suffered boom and bust cycles coinciding 
with ownership changes injecting fresh funds.
    Membership in a corporation such as American Skiing seems to be 
a more positive step towards steadier improvements, growth, and 
financial outlook.
    We oppose D.O.J.'s divestiture order.

      Sincerely yours,
Ronald Barber,
Pamela A. Barber,
364 Thompson Rd, N Conway, NH 03860.

State of New Hampshire

August 30, 1996.
Mr. Craig Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: We are writing you to strongly request a 
reversal of the order to LBO Enterprises, Inc., to divest itself of 
ownership of Cranmore Mountain and Waterville Valley ski areas. As 
we understand the intent of anti-trust laws, they are to protect 
small business and the population in general. Your divestiture order 
in fact creates a situation which the law intends to abate. Let us 
explain in greater detail.
    Both ski areas have been through bankruptcy proceedings within 
the past 5 years and during this period of time have been a 
detriment, not an asset, to their surrounding communities. Until Les 
Otten and LBO Enterprises, Inc., obtained ownership, neither ski 
area was operating in the black side of the ledger. Under his 
guidance, both areas have returned again to their once profitable 
position; and more importantly, the adjacent communities have seen a 
tremendous increase in tourist dollars for their small businesses. 
We believe that, based upon past experience, any new owner(s) would 
not have the capital nor expertise to maintain Mr. Otten's marketing 
programs, and the ultimate loss will be to the citizens of the north 
country of New Hampshire. We cannot sit passively by and allow this 
to happen.
    We truly hope that you will re-consider your position, and at 
the very least, advise us to the reasoning behind any decision to 
continue the divestiture order.

      Very truly yours,
William E. Williams, Jr.,
State Representative, Grafton District 3.
For: Howard C. Dickinson, Jr., Carroll District 2, Gene G. Chandler, 
Carroll District 1, Henry P. Mock, Carroll District 3, Kipp A. 
Cooper, Carroll District 2, Paul K. Chase, Jr., Grafton District 6, 
Sid Lovett, Grafton District 6.

Mt. Washington Valley

September 5, 1996.
Craig W. Conrath,
Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1401 H. Street NW, 
Washington, DC 205530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: The Board of Directors of the Mt. Washington 
Valley Chamber of Commerce with offices in North Conway, New 
Hampshire, are in support of the Task Force set up in our region to 
speak to the issue before you on the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore by 
the American Ski Company.
    We feel that the efforts of the Task Force will show that the 
Ski Industry in general needs to be better understood and that this 
is an industry which has reached a plateau in regards to pricing. It 
has become unaffordable to the greater populace and therefore the 
threat of over pricing is of greatest concern to the industry 
itself. One of the best ways to control costs is to have companies 
which can utilize economies of scale within their own design which 
will solidify their own future. The American Ski Company is trying 
to do just that.
    The health of the Ski Industry is of critical importance to our 
region. The ability for the owner of Cranmore to not only have the 
financial resources for the long haul, but to have the experience in 
the management, growth, and development of Skiing on a large scale 
is also vital.
    Because the Board of Directors of The Mt. Washington Valley 
Chamber of Commerce represent a number of Ski Areas within our 
membership ranks, it makes it difficult politically to promote one 
area over the other, we can, however, wholeheartedly support this 
local Task Force and their efforts to help the Justice Department 
better understand the complexities of the Ski Industry and its 
impact on this economic region.

      Sincerely,
A.O. Lucy,
Executive Director, Mt. Washington Valley Chamber of Commerce.
cc: Board of Directors, Jim Sommerville.
September 7, 1996.
Mr. Craig Conrath,
Anti-Trust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC

    Dear Mr. Conrath, I am writing about the DOJ order to have OTTEN 
sell Cranmore and Waterville Valley. I have just read that other 
probably will sell these ski areas to Gillett. However, in case that 
sale does not materialize, I want to write you.
    I fully support your decision to order Otten to sell Cranmore 
and Waterville Valley. I live in Glen, halfway between Attitash and 
Cranmore and thus am most familiar with the Cranmore situation. I am 
not a businessman; I have no financial interest in Cranmore or 
Attitash; I do not work for Cranmore or Otten, I am a PLAIN SKIER. I 
believe that making Otten sell Cranmore will BENEFIT me, a plain 
skier. With competition I believe I will get better and more skiing 
for my money. I thank you for thinking of me.
    The local businessmen, local officials, and Congressman 
____________________ give arguments stating why Otten should keep 
Cranmore. When carefully examined, the argument fall apart.
    1. The pro-Otten business forces say that ``economies of scale'' 
will reduce or keep down ski prices. That's a bunch of baloney. 
Perhaps they forget how Otten RAISED Cranmore prices after he took 
over. Also the

[[Page 56025]]

business people seem to forget the NEAR-REVOLT of local people when 
Otten charged more and restricted the skiing of the local Masters 
skiing program.
    2. The pro-Otten forces predict a possible disaster to our area 
if Otten is forced to sell Cranmore. That is over-speculation and 
pure nonsense. They mean PERHAPS not as many dollars in their 
pockets. They DO NOT care about the individual skier. If Mr. Gillett 
is typical of the possible ski area owners, than other ski area 
owners have as much or more interest than Otten in running a good 
ski area and in being a good neighbor with those of us who live in 
the area.
    We need more competition, not less competition, in this area.
    On another matter, please be careful with the words that Otten 
uses.
    1. Otten builds Grand Summit Hotels but they are at the BASES of 
mountains, not on the summits.
    2. Otten advertises Cranmore-Attitash as ``Ski the 
Presidentials.'' In reality the Presidentials are a series of 
magnificent mountains some 15 miles from Cranmore-Attitash, in 
ANOTHER COUNTY, and some 1000 feet higher than Cranmore-Attitash. 
Moreover, it would be dangerous for a normal skier to ski these 
above-tree-line peaks.
    3. Otten and his people, when planning to build a huge new hotel 
in our area, called local residents who expressed concern 
``enemies.''
    This is the kind of man you are dealing with. Again, I applaud 
you for making Otten sell Cranmore. Do not bow to the many letters 
that Otten supporters and local businessmen write.
    As an individual skier I am glad that someone in our federal 
government is trying to look after the interest of the skier.

        Yours truly,
Richard M. Chrenko,
P.O. Box 913, West Side Road, Glen, NH 03838-0913.

United States of America v. American Skiing Company and S-K-I Limited

Civil Action No. 1:96CV01308; Filed: June 11, 1996; Comment Period: 
September 10, 1996

Mt. Washington Valley Task Force Report: Divestiture of Mt. Cranmore; 
Dated: September 5, 1996

Table of Contents

Forwarding Letter
Task Force Members
Opening Statement
Overview of Department of Justice Positions
Task Force Rebuttal:
    Market
    Monopoly
    Competitive Pricing
    Maine Day/Eastern New England Weekend Skier
    Economic Impact
Overview of Ski Industry Survival
    Infrastructure
    Global Market
    Mergers
Mt. Washington Valley--It's More Than Skiing
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ``HHI''
Recapitulation of Economists' Input
The Maine Comparison
Conclusion/Recommendation
Have They (DOJ) Gone Out of Bounds?
Research References and New Statistical Information
Appendix
    A: Selective Newspaper Articles
    B: Selective Letters
    C: Task Force Report Endorsements
    D: History of Mt. Cranmore ``Flight Without Wings''
    E: Marketing Brochures

Town of Conway

September 5, 1996.
Mr. Craig W. Conrath,
Chief, Merger Task Force, Anti-Trust Division, U.S. Department of 
Justice, 1401 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20530

    Dear Mr. Conrath: Enclosed herewith is the response report to 
the Department of Justice's judgment order No. 1:96CV01308 requiring 
the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore as a condition of the merger of 
American Skiing Company and S-K-I Ltd. This report is the result of 
many hours, involving meetings, collection of data, research, 
interviewing, and discussions by a special Task Force that is 
representative of the entire Mt. Washington Valley.
    We urge you to read carefully and digest the report's contents. 
You will find a considerable amount of current data not used in your 
prior deliberations, unbiased professional opinion, feelings from 
lay people who are the core and heart of the economic region, and 
what we feel is a convincing collaboration of information which 
clearly and overwhelmingly justifies a modification of the consent 
decree not to require the divesting of Mt. Cranmore.
    In the interest of thousands of individuals and families who 
reside in Mt. Washington Valley, the hundreds of businesses 
established in the Valley, the millions of U.S. and foreign visitors 
who vacation-tour-recreate in the valley, we urge you to be open and 
fair. If you are, your conclusion should be the same as ours in 
recognizing that the divesting of Mt. Cranmore is not in the 
public's best interest, there is strong and potentially devastating 
adverse economic impact, the Maine day/weekend skier issue is a myth 
not a reality, the market has been misunderstood and when properly 
defined creates a favorable Herfindahl-Hirschman Index ``HHI'', 
competitive pricing is market driven-self policing and not an issue, 
the merger does not create a monopoly, and the merger creates a 
natural geographic and economic marriage of two ski areas (Attitash 
and Mt. Cranmore) assuring the viability and economic growth of Mt. 
Cranmore and the region.
    The U.S. Department of Justice's cooperation and patience over 
the past few months is greatly appreciated.
    Any questions you may have should be directed to James B. 
Somerville, Town Manager, Conway, NH (603-447-3811), Task Force 
Chairman and spokesperson.
    With confidence and anticipation we look forward to the 
Department of Justice's consent decree modification.

        Respectfully submitted,
James B. Somerville,
Chairman, Mt. Washington Valley/Mt. Cranmore Task Force.

                               Task Force                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name                          Position/Business       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Bartlett, PO Box 1856, Concord,  Commissioner--Dept. of         
 NH 03302-1856, 603-271-2411.             Resources & Economic          
                                          Development, State of New     
                                          Hampshire.                    
Taylor Caswell, 1210 Longworth House     Representative--Congressman    
 Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515,      Zeliff.                       
 202-225-5456.                                                          
John Cavanaugh, 99 Pease Blvd.,          Representative--Senator Gregg. 
 Portsmouth, NH 03801, 603-431-2171.                                    
Mark Aldrich, 50 Phillipe Cote Street,   Representative--Senator Smith. 
 Manchester, NH 03101, 603-634-5000.                                    
James B. Somerville, PO Box 70, Center   Conway Town Manager, Chairman, 
 Conway, NH 03813, 603-447-3811.          Mt. Cranmore Task Force.      
William D. Paine, Esq., PO Box 40,       Judge/Attorney.                
 Intervale, NH 03845, 603-345-5562.                                     
William Cuccio, PO Box 372, North        Restaurant Owner/Selectman.    
 Conway, NH 03860, 603-356-6041/5578.                                   

[[Page 56026]]

                                                                        
Dewey Mark, Red Parka Pub, PO Box 173,   Restaurant Owner, President of 
 Glen, NH 03838, 603-383-4344.            Mt. Washington Valley Chamber 
                                          of Commerce.                  
John A. Cuddy, PO Box 235B, North        Banker, Mt. Cranmore Ski       
 Conway, NH 03860, 603-447-3700.          Instructor 17 years.          
Tyler Palmer, Palmer Insurance, PO Box   Insurance Agency Owner, Former 
 400, Intervale, NH 03845, 603-356-6926.  Olympic Skier.                
Arnold Blethen, PO Box 142, North        Retired Business Owner/Mt.     
 Conway, NH 03860.                        Cranmore Ambassador.          
David Urey, PO Box 337, Conway, NH       Retired Corporate Lawyer.      
 03818, 603-447-6331.                                                   
Judy McGinty, PO Box 339, Intervale, NH  New Hampshire Electric Coop.,  
 03845, 603-356-5762.                     Public Relations.             
Gene Chandler, Rte. 302, Bartlett, NH    NH State Representative,       
 03812, 603-356-2950.                     Bartlett Selectman, Real      
                                          Estate Sales.                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening Statement

    1. This report concentrates on Mt. Cranmore with a position from 
the outset that it should not be included for divestiture as a 
condition of merger. Using the Department of Justice's (DOJ) documents 
of decision as a base reference, the report is specific in addressing 
what the Task Force considers to be ``flawed'' conclusions/
philosophies/assumptions and facts.
    In each area of concentration, based on collected and researched 
data, new facts, and professional opinion, the report substantiates why 
the DOJ's premises are flawed and, in so doing, new conclusions and 
opinions are drawn. The report does not attempt to definitively look at 
every minute detail or issue.
    Primary subject areas are fully covered as follows:

MARKET
COMPETITION/PRICING
MONOPOLY
ADVERSE ECONOMIC IMPACT
INFRASTRUCTURE/SKI INDUSTRY SURVIVAL
``HHI''

    2. Because of developments as of August 31 with the announcement by 
American Ski Co. of a potential buyer, a more universal comment section 
which zeros in on the principal of DOJ's involvement in a leisure 
industry which markets to the consumer's discretionary available dollar 
has been added to this report, entitled ``Have They Gone Out-Of-
Bounds?''
    3. All statistics and professional opinions are verifiable and 
contained in the referenced resource documents or through contacting 
the professional references used in preparing this report.

Overview of Dept. of Justice Positions

    1. Selling of Mount Cranmore will preserve competition, the merger 
will lessen competition substantially.
    2. American Skiing Co. would have control of eight of the largest 
ski resorts in eastern New England.
    3. Merger would raise prices.
    4. Merger would eliminate discounts to Maine residents for day 
skiing trips and to residents of Maine, eastern Massachusetts, eastern 
Connecticut and Rhode Island for weekend excursions.
    5. About $400 million was spent last year on skiing in New England.
    6. Weekend and day ski market is Maine, eastern Massachusetts and 
Connecticut, and Rhode Island.
    7. Eastern New England and Maine constitute a relevant geographic 
market.
    8. Provision of Skiing comprises all services related to providing 
access to downhill and snowboarding, including ancillary services such 
as food service, entertainment, and lodging.
    9. Most skiers travel some distance to ski.
    10. Pricing, discounts, ski packages vary and can be market 
targeted.
    11. Downhill skiing differs from other winter recreational 
activities.
    12. A small increase in prices for skiing would not cause a 
significant number of downhill skiers to substitute other winter 
recreational activities for skiing.
    13. Skiers are not willing to travel an unlimited distance to ski.
    14. ASC and S-K-I compete and both provide skiing to eastern New 
England weekend skiers at each of their ski resorts.
    15. There are a limited number of resorts with adequate services in 
Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont for weekend skiers.
    16. Smaller ski resorts located farther away cannot and, after 
transaction, would not constrain prices charged to weekend skiers 
living in eastern New England.
    17. Skiing at smaller or more distant resorts is not a practical or 
economic alternative for most eastern New England weekend skiers most 
of the time.
    18. ASC and S-K-I control the only resorts Maine residents can go 
to for day skiing trips.
    19. Mt. Cranmore can charge prices to Maine day skiers different 
from prices they charge to other skiers.
    20. Competition between ASC and S-K-I providing skiing to eastern 
New England weekend skiers would be eliminated.
    21. Discounting to eastern New England skiers by ASC and S-K-I 
resorts would likely be reduced or eliminated.
    22. Prices for skiing to eastern New England weekend skiers would 
be likely to increase.
    23. Competition, generally, in providing skiing to Maine day skiers 
would be lessened substantially.
    24. Actual competition between ASC and S-K-I in providing skiing to 
Maine day skiers would be eliminated.
    25. Discounting to Maine day skiers by ASC and S-K-I resorts would 
likely be reduced or eliminated.
    26. Prices for skiing to Maine day skiers would be likely to 
increase.
    27. The merger would substantially increase concentration in the 
eastern New England weekend skier market and Maine day skier market 
using the ``HHI'' as a measure of market concentration.
    28. Post merger would increase the ``HHI'' to 2100 with a change of 
900 pts. for eastern New England with a 43% market share. It would be 
2900--up 1200 for Maine and eastern New Hampshire, with a 50% market 
share.
    29. Successful entry or expansion in skiing business would be 
difficult, time consuming, costly and extremely unlikely, and not 
sufficient to prevent any harm to competition.
    30. The post merger, after divestitures, would show an ``HHI'' of 
under 1800 and a market share less than 40% in eastern New England. For 
Maine day skiers the ``HHI'' would be over 1900 and a market share of 
less than 35.

Task Force Rebuttal

Market

    Analysis of the relevant MARKET is imperative to the credibility of 
DOJ's findings. We strongly feel and are convinced that what DOJ has 
determined to be the relevant MARKET is seriously flawed. There are 
three (3)

[[Page 56027]]

markets which affect Mount Washington Valley and the subject Mountain 
of Cranmore.
    The first is an ever growing global market. Since DOJ's judgment 
places a strong emphasis on day trippers and weekend skiers, one only 
needs to be aware that it exists and that it will cause a future 
decline in the percent of day and weekend skiers as that number is 
relatively stagnant, yet the total numbers will grow as successful 
global marketing takes hold in New England.
    The second market has unjustly been narrowed to Maine and eastern 
New England (actually north eastern New England). The number of skiers 
visiting NH from Rhode Island at 4.3% exceeds Maine's 3%, and 
Connecticut at 2.8% isn't far behind. New England represents 82.8% plus 
whatever visits occur from Vermont and even New York read in at 2.2%. 
Mt. Washington Valley is definitely a New England market destination 
and should be openly accepted as such by DOJ. The number for the HHI 
should accordingly be reworked and we challenge the DOJ to seek a 
second outside opinion and study to verify or refute the HHI. This will 
be discussed in more detail later in the report.
    The third market is the COMPETITIVE MARKET PLACE once the skier 
arrives in Mt. Washington Valley. Within an hour and fifteen minutes 
there are no less than fourteen (14) ski areas to meet the desires and 
needs of every individual, family, skill level, diversity, weather 
condition and consumer cost level. DOJ has made no recognition or 
mention of this unique market place whose intensity probably cannot be 
found anywhere else in the world. A day skier traveling from New 
England's four (4) hour drive from market can, and does go to any one 
of the ski areas, and the weekend or five day and longer skier will set 
down in the Valley or another resort area with accommodations and 
likely consider skiing more than one area during the visit. With this 
type of market place, it is difficult to conceive how the DOJ cannot 
understand and believe in the free enterprise system, the supply and 
demand market place, the discretionary recreational dollar and that 
competitive pricing and consumer services will be self monitoring.

Monopoly

    There simply is no likelihood of monopoly. Leaving Mt. Cranmore in 
the merged entity will have no significant impact on concepts of 
monopoly. Mt. Cranmore represents only 3.7% of the merged entity skier 
day volume (1996 data) and is by far the smallest entity. With 
divestiture of Waterville, Mt. Cranmore is still only 4% of the merged 
entity volume. Combining the skier visit volumes of Attitash/Bear Peak 
and Mt. Cranmore, the volume is till only 10.5% of the merged entity 
(without Waterville). They further represent a combined penetration of 
only 14% of the New Hampshire skier visit volume. Figures have not been 
obtainable to date which would show the percentage ratio of Sunday 
River, Attitash and Mt. Cranmore to the 14 ski areas in the skier 
destination market place which are:


Cranmore..................................  Sunday River                
Attitash..................................  Balsams                     
Loon......................................  Shawnee                     
Waterville................................  King Pine                   
Cannon....................................  Gunstock                    
Black.....................................  Mt. Abram                   
Wildcat...................................  Bretton Woods               
                                                                        

    Common sense says that the numbers would be favorable and not 
reflective of a monopoly positioning.
    The Task Force feels it is important that the DOJ consider 
Attitash/Bear Peak and Mt. Cranmore as a marriage and as one in the 
market place. (See Appendix E) The DOJ should carefully weigh the 
efficiencies and costs of operations that the prior merger created in 
order to be competitive, creative and sustainable. The two areas offer 
all the positive incentives for operational cost effective 
efficiencies. The proposed order would undo the efficiencies already 
achieved by the operational combination of Attitash/Bear Peak/Cranmore. 
The two mountains are within 10 miles of each other, they offer a wide 
diversity of skier skills, snow making, length of season, on site non 
ski recreational and entertainment facilities, share the same off slope 
amenities, and are closely connected by rail train (snow skier, tourist 
run scheduling are being negotiated and highly probable). They are not 
in competition with each other and the demographics make them a perfect 
marriage. The efficiencies are self evident . . . marketing, staff, 
planned diversity, economy of scale in such areas as electric rates, 
equipment purchases, food purchases, etc. An example of the effect and 
advantage of combined marketing is provided in Appendix E. The 
brochures also highlight the Task Force's position that the two areas 
are a natural marriage.
    The inclusion of Mt. Cranmore in the merged entity is clearly not 
the development of a monopoly. It is, instead, an example of 
leadership, running a business with an innovative management style and 
in a manner which will enhance the community, the sport, and the 
current and future success and sustainability of Mt. Cranmore. There is 
no other marriage that can come close and offer as much value. The need 
is there, and the ``at risk'' financial history of Mt. Cranmore speaks 
for itself. Based on Cranmore's pre LBO history over the past 10+ years 
of being unable to pay its operating bills, foreclosure, lack of 
credible buyers, etc., it may well qualify as a ``failing firm'' under 
DOJ's Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

Competitive Pricing

    The DOJ placed a lot of emphasis on pricing with a weighted concern 
to the Maine day skier and eastern New England weekender. Packages of 
lodging, food and skiing, discounts, season tickets, smart cards, etc. 
are a way of life, part of marketing, supply and demand, and the free 
enterprise system. However, several issues need to be made very clear 
as the entire DOJ discussion reflects a possible lack of understanding 
of the ski industry.
    1. The sport of skiing is discretionary, absorbing available 
discretionary dollars from persons earning an income where such dollars 
exist. In the 1995-96 season 37% of New Hampshire skiers had a 
principal income of $75,000 and 31% $50,000 to $75,000. That means 68% 
of those skiing in New Hampshire had a principal income of over 
$50,000. In 1994-95 37.3% had a household income in excess of $75,000.
    2. Because there are 14 ski areas within the immediate area, if any 
one or two or even five areas raised their prices too high, the 
existing competitive market would seriously erode their consumer base.
    3. Within the Valley's market area prices vary significantly, but 
they also undoubtedly reflect conditions, skill levels, and 
infrastructure aspects from which people in our society freely select. 
Skiers, as in the case of most consumers, are very dollar/value 
oriented.
    4. No one on the Task Force is aware of any ski area which markets 
to the day skiers with different rates dependent on the State in which 
they reside.
    5. The day skier to Mt. Cranmore, for example, who is normally a 
frequent skier, has the option of a seasonal ticket. If they work for a 
company in the Valley that is a member of the Chamber of Commerce (many 
do from the Fryeburg, Maine area) they can purchase a discounted 
employee ticket.
    6. Because a combined Attitash/Bear Peak/Cranmore has and will 
continue to cause cost effective operational efficiencies, it is more 
probable that pricing will go down--not up--subject to labor and other 
indexes or inflation. This will make enhanced qualitative

[[Page 56028]]

skiing more affordable to those with less discretionary dollars. The 
combined efficiencies of Attitash/Bear Peak/Cranmore make these savings 
and lower relative pricing a reality as evidenced at Attitash/Bear 
Peak/Cranmore. The result satisfies the primary purpose stated in the 
Horizontal Merger Guidelines which is ``the primary benefit. * * * 
lower prices to consumers.''
    7. Ski areas outside the merger will enjoy the benefits of the more 
global marketing of the merged entity. Because the area can absorb and 
entertain all levels, they will get a significant consumer spin off. 
One must understand skiers are not going to visit and ski just one 
mountain. The draw and excitement is to try others. Therefore, the more 
people that come to the Valley, the more skiers all areas have, pricing 
stays competitive and the remaining independent resorts have improved 
opportunity to self sustain. Without Mt. Cranmore in the merger family, 
fewer global marketing dollars will flow out to benefit the valley and 
ski market area. It will be more selfishly oriented, the other ski 
areas will not be the benefactors, fourteen (14) ski areas will decline 
and Attitash, along with Sunday River, will be the big winners with a 
greater share of the skier visit volume than if Mt. Cranmore remained 
in the merged entity.
    The Task Force unquestionably feels the DOJ's pricing theory and 
approach are seriously flawed and are not a justifiable concern.

Maine Day/Eastern New England Weekend Skiers

(DOJ has not delineated geographical boundaries.)
    The issue has already been partially discussed, however, facts and 
figures require a close look.
    1. In 1995-96 New Hampshire had 2,321,158 skier visits.
    2. Of those visits only 4% (92,846) were from Maine. The data 
available does not reflect how many of those skiers were day visits, 
and it is not reliable to assume that the mass majority were. For 
example, from December 1995 through April 15, 1996, the Mt. Washington 
Valley Chamber of Commerce reported that 5.6% of lodging reservations 
they made were from Maine, and that 5.7% of all inquiries were also 
from Maine.
    3. Available 1996 data further shows that Mt. Cranmore had 125,000 
skier visits of which 6,500 (5.2%) were from Maine and Attitash had 
201,000 skier visits of which 4,422 (2.2%) were from Maine.
    4. This means that 93% of the 92,000 Maine skiers of 
all categories did not ski Mt. Cranmore and 88.2% did not ski either 
Attitash or Mt. Cranmore.
    5. By DOJ's own admission, Waterville Valley would see an 
insignificant number of Maine day skier visits.
    6. The above, beyond a reasonable doubt, refutes the DOJ's theory 
and assumptions that the merger would monopolize and cause prices to 
increase for the Maine day skiers. 88.2% of the Maine skiers that come 
to New Hampshire ski at other locations which are not part of the 
merger makeup. No doubt most of them ski at one of the other eight ski 
areas in NH located in the Mt. Washington Valley's market area. 
Further, the monopoly and price issue at the Maine locations is moot as 
the DOJ's findings reveal that the Maine's Attorney General negotiated 
a pricing discount program for Maine residents which the DOJ is 
apparently satisfied with. In the reverse, NH skiers going to Maine are 
not concerned about price discounts as they are more apt to ski for the 
experience. Also they recognize the cost relationship of qualitative 
infrastructure, services and product. NH's local market with its many 
ski areas and free enterprise competitive market place, offers 
significant alternative pricing opportunities for those who desire it. 
The state of Maine, by trying to discriminate, will be the loser as NH 
residents will stay home. Remember that others will have to pay more to 
offset discount tickets, especially if the prices are below the cost of 
doing business.
    According to the statistics compiled by the Institute for NH 
Studies for the 1994-95 season, only 3% of NH's skiers were from Maine 
for the entire season. Of those skiers surveyed, 68% were on a ``multi-
day trip,'' thus less than 1.5% of NH's skiers were on a ``day trip'' 
from Maine. This is even smaller than the 2.5% of NH skiers from 
Florida, all of whom would have to have been on a multi-day trip. The 
segment of the population which the DOJ purports to protect by the 
proposed divestiture of Cranmore is nearly deminimus, and is a smaller 
segment of the market than even the skiers from Florida. This indicates 
to the Task Force Committee that the DOJ has chosen an inappropriate 
``relevant market'' on which to base its order of divestiture.
    7. Eastern New England Weekenders: With Maine out of the picture, 
even though we do not agree with the DOJ's definition of market area, 
the skier who comes to NH is narrowed down to eastern Massachusetts and 
Rhode Island.
    While statistics are confusing with so many variables, it is 
difficult to create any meaningful data. What is known is:
     An average travel group is 5.06.
     Approximately 26% own property in the Valley.
     Cranmore had 65% of its skiers from Massachusetts (not 
known how many are eastern Mass).
     78.2% stayed one night or more each visit--how many visits 
unknown.
     Available identified data on Rhode Island skiers is 
limited.
    Due to the density of population in Eastern Mass. and the financial 
affluency of the market area, it is difficult to envision the DOJ's 
concern. There are so many choices from great day skiing at Nashoba, 
Wachusett and Temple to weekend alternatives from the Berkshires and 
throughout northern New England. Many of the 2nd homeowners in the 
Valley take advantage of seasonal tickets or enjoy the flexibility of a 
14 ski area market for their growing families. Throughout the ski 
season they are prone to try many of the different areas. If they, as 
consumers, were surveyed or interviewed the DOJ would know how thrilled 
they are with the merger, and the confidence they have that it is in 
the public's best interest. There is little to no concern with the 
weekender market about monopoly and prices.

Economic Impact

    The DOJ's decision to require divestiture of Mt. Cranmore has 
caused an alarm of concern to go off throughout the valley. Mt. 
Cranmore has struggled too long and the Task Force does not believe it 
can survive as a status quo stand alone operation. Economists we have 
communicated with concur. We finally got the wheel fixed, why try to 
tell us it has to be broken again?
    The required action will have an immediate adverse economic impact 
in Conway. Concerns are already being seen with properties adjacent to 
Cranmore and confidence levels are depleting within the business 
community.
    1996 saw $80 per skier visit spent in New Hampshire which equates 
to $10,000,000 being spent at Mt. Cranmore, plus an additional $110 or 
$13,750,000 of secondary sales. Since Mt. Cranmore is not a self 
contained resort, the actual secondary sales could be higher in Conway 
and Mt. Washington Valley.
    Mt. Cranmore is the center of Conway's economy. The mountain is 
rapidly moving into year round recreate and entertainment which will 
increase the economic stature, need and value in the Valley. As a major 
destination resort

[[Page 56029]]

the well being of Mt. Cranmore is essential to our resort/tourism 
economy.
    The DOJ, prior to its decision, did not evaluate adverse economic 
impact to Conway and the Valley. Placing it on the block and taking it 
away from its positive management/ownership and direction puts the 
mountain in jeopardy. Should history repeat itself, and the DOJ cannot 
guarantee the end result of its decision, it would cause chaos and a 
devastating economic blow which would seriously cause loss of jobs, 
closure of businesses and negatively affect the Valley's reputation as 
a quality family resort. Not enough can be said as to the importance of 
Mt. Cranmore. The potential harm if DOJ is wrong, which we believe they 
are, far outweighs the issues of monopoly and pricing. You are talking 
about livelihoods, jobs, families, business investments, not $2-$4 on a 
ski ticket. You are talking about the necessities of life not the 
expenditure of discretionary income.
    The struggles of Mount Cranmore to survive over the years have 
slowly caused the ski area to be what it is today. Through time, the 
separate entities of the ski area and tennis/recreation club merged 
together and the ski development easement rights were created, and a 
hotel site was approved. Regardless of the owner, these segments need 
to remain bound together as the Mount Cranmore Recreation area. To 
segregate them now or in the future endangers the probable well being 
of the area and certainly its future expansion opportunities. The DOJ 
expressed during its visit and meeting with the local Task Force that 
it appeared the decision documents should have been more specific as 
concerns what would be divested at Cranmore and that it should all stay 
intact.

Overview of Ski Industry Survival

    A. Infrastructure: The 1994/95 Kottke National End of Season Survey 
and the National Ski Areas Association and Ski Industries of America 
professional viewpoints strongly reflect that the industry is going 
through a major change in order to survive. With a stagnant U.S. skier 
consumer group, the only national upswing has been the market 
development of snowboarding.
    The costs to operate and maintain the state-of-the-art 
infrastructure are increasing at a rate that far exceeds the ability 
for the U.S. skier population to afford to sustain and are grossly 
disproportionate. One result has been that over the past ten years ski 
resorts have declined from 750 to 52 (30%)--ALMOST COMPARABLE TO THE 
BANKING INDUSTRY.
    To survive--ski resorts--are becoming a leading force in efficiency 
of operations, cost effective management and creative operations. To do 
this, mergers and special unique marketing and partnership deals have 
rapidly become a way of life. Operating ski resorts acting alone 
without sufficient leveraged capital are not surviving, and will not if 
the DOJ is to position itself to disallow cost effective efficient 
operational mergers. As clearly pointed out in the National Ski Areas 
Association's letter to the DOJ, Mr. Otten has risen as an exemplary 
leader in the industry from which all who want to survive are looking 
to his methodology and example. The DOJ's decision on the subject 
merger, if not modified, will be self destructive and lead toward the 
potential decline and demise of a national industry which is extremely 
important to the national resort and tourism economy. It is difficult 
enough to have positive economic development. The industry certainly 
does not need the DOJ's help in motivating failure.
    Mt. Cranmore, as a stand alone ski area, does not have the skier 
capacity to generate the revenues to maintain and enhance its 
infrastructure, provide a qualitative experience, and market its 
existence. Because of American Ski Co. holdings and capital leverage 
abilities, the operational and infrastructure efficiencies took hold 
immediately and, to a degree never before experienced at Mt. Cranmore, 
such as pass through snowmaking equipment from Sunday River (light 
years ahead of what Cranmore had), new detachable high speed quad lifts 
affordable due to multiple site purchase needs, cost effective joint 
location marketing, and the story goes on. This simply expands the area 
of market draw, brings people for weekday skiing, pays overhead during 
the week so they don't have to raise prices for day and weekend skiers. 
Mt. Cranmore, after many years, literally leaped into the modern world. 
The DOJ's decision will stagnate the ski area and it will rapidly 
recede behind the times as a stand alone ski mountain and will not 
survive in the future market. Reference is once again made to the 
Horizontal Merger Guidelines of the DOJ.
    B. Global Market: The need to develop a global market has been 
touched upon throughout this report. One reason so many ski areas have 
failed in the northeast has been an attitudinal problem that we do not 
offer comparable quality and that we are DRIVE-TO resort destinations. 
The ability to make ample snow, hold it on the slopes, properly groom 
the snow, extend the season, are examples of change and quality. The 
new challenge is to attract the more distant traveler to try the 
experience and reach out into a market place which is foreign to New 
England ski areas. To keep user costs down and maintain an affordable 
sport, an expanded market is required both to those in the U.S. in warm 
weather geographic regions and international markets. Foreign tourists 
are the only import trade which is actually on the export side of the 
trade deficit as they spend their money here. Mergers free up dollars 
for global marketing which help many enjoy increased skier use they 
would not ordinarily have.
    C. Mergers: In the ski industry mergers are the current and future 
wave. If they are disallowed, the industry will continue its decline. 
The concerns of monopoly and pricing fly in the face of reality in a 
recreational, non necessity, discretionary industry. The DOJ should not 
jump to anti-trust assumptions. The Task Force is confident that by 
letting Mt. Cranmore remain with the merged entity, the assumptions 
made by DOJ will prove to be wrong. Instead, the DOJ should put TRUST 
in the American Way. Whether right or wrong, Mt. Cranmore is so small 
in the big picture that little harm will come of it and the DOJ will 
have a documented experience to base future decisions on.

Mt. Washington Valley--It is More Than Skiing

    The area is as close as a resort destination can be to being year 
round. Surveys show an extremely high level of use (and growing) at 
both Attitash and Cranmore. The mountains themselves are used for year 
round recreation (biking, hiking, sledding, horseback riding, water 
slide, dining, bird watching, foliage looking, X country skiing, snow 
shoeing, snowmobiling, tennis, swimming, etc.). In addition, they are a 
part of the whole which makes Mt. Cranmore and Mt. Washington Valley a 
major New England destination family resort. If Mt. Cranmore is not 
part of the merged entity, it will have a major negative impact on the 
whole with its inability to maintain what it now offers and to grow 
into the future as it responds to society's changes and demands.

Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)

    New Hampshire as a state and Mt. Cranmore as part of Mt. Washington 
Valley, is the core in the New England market place. Sixty percent of 
all NH vacationers and tourists come to the White Mountains. It is 
estimated that over 8,000,000 come to or through Conway, NH. Based on 
previous market

[[Page 56030]]

discussions, the DOJ's HHI is probably seriously flawed. It is unknown 
which ski areas were used for the Index. However, it is obvious from 
the data we have that all of the 14 ski areas identified should be 
used. In addition the following should be used as a minimum: Ragged, 
Temple, Whaleback, Sunapee, Saddleback in ME; all but Burke and Jay 
Peak in VT, Wachusett, Blue Hills and Nashoba Valley in MA, with 
possible consideration of the Berkshire ski areas as they are eastern 
New England weekend accessible. If DOJ is determined to hold to its 
vision of what Cranmore's market is, then they must also acknowledge 
that the skiers from that same market place don't just come to Mt. 
Washington Valley.
    It is the opinion of the Task Force that the DOJ's methodology in 
calculating the HHI is significantly flawed if the true market has not 
been recognized and all ski areas were not used in making the 
calculations. Day skiers in eastern Massachusetts can just as easily 
frequent Nashoba, Wachusett and Temple, for example. Weekenders can 
seek diversity and just as readily go to the Berkshires. The Task Force 
recommends Prof. Bill Fischel, Economist, Dartmouth College, NH, who is 
well versed in New England economy and the ski industry, be used as a 
source by the DOJ for recalculating and developing the ``HHI'' to a 
properly identified market area with specific concentration in relation 
to Mt. Cranmore.

Recapitulation of Economists Input

    1. The impact on New Hampshire's skiers was not addressed by DOJ. 
Was the justification based at all on real skier data? What is the 
number of Maine skiers that skied in NH versus the total number of 
Maine skiers? What were the NH ski areas that were visited?
    2. The government has not demonstrated that higher prices will 
occur or that higher prices will be unacceptable to the skiing public. 
What is the price elasticity of lift prices? At what price will skiers 
choose another ski area? ASC & S-K-I will not control the whole market. 
Higher prices are justified and acceptable to skiers when there is an 
increase in the level of services, improvement/expansion of the ski 
area or added amenities. Such improvements were being pursued at 
Cranmore.
    3. Skiers do not make their decision on where to ski based on lift 
ticket price alone. Arguably, ski conditions at an area is the primary 
decision factor. Other factors are ski area terrain, exposure to 
weather conditions, lift facilities, lift lines, and proximity to the 
skier. Ski area amenities such as food, lodging, shopping, etc., are 
some additional factors.
    4. As part of a Mt. Washington Valley resort complex, Cranmore 
helps bring in tourists to the area.
    5. The economies of scale that ASC/S-K-I merger brings, access to 
capital and marketing synergy would benefit Cranmore, Cranmore will 
find it much more difficult to ``compete'' as a stand alone ski area.
    6. DOJ is not correct when it states that expansion of an existing 
area by other parties is difficult to undertake and is not an option as 
a response to the merger.
    7. DOJ states that ASC and S-K-I together had 43% of the skier days 
in northern New England. Correct current data shows that it was 
actually 37% at all ski areas in the three states. Concentration 
without divestiture would result with Maine at 47%, Vermont at 39%, and 
New Hampshire at 25%.
    8. Day trip skiers (on average) have lower average skill levels and 
are more likely to ski at smaller (non resort) areas. These smaller 
areas do not appear to have been included in DOJ's ``HHI'' 
calculations. It is not clear what ski areas in NH were used when the 
index for Maine day skiers was calculated.
    9. The DOJ assumes that Cranmore will be attractive to another 
buyer at a fair market price. Ski areas of Mt. Cranmore's size have a 
mixed record of viability as stand-alone areas. Successful marketing of 
the ski area to day trippers is imperative if this area is to survive. 
It would not be in the interest of the operator to raise prices to the 
level that it would not attract a significant volume of day trip 
skiers. There are many other ski areas competing with Mt. Cranmore for 
this day trip skier market.
    10. The nature of the skier market nationally and internationally 
is changing. Ski areas in the region are increasingly attracting skiers 
from the middle Atlantic states, eastern Canada, western Europe, 
Florida and even Latin America. Only large marketing organizations can 
compete with Rocky Mountain, Canadian and European ski areas to attract 
skiers from these markets. The growth of the industry in New England 
can occur only by attracting new skiers from outside the region. The 
larger ski areas and organizations are a form of economic development 
as they bring additional tourists into the region which would not 
otherwise take place.
    11. The list of ski areas used in measuring the HHI should be the 
subject of further research. Massachusetts ski areas should be included 
in the analysis of serving day trip skiers (and weekenders) in southern 
New England, called eastern New England in the court filing. The 
viability of small ski areas which do not have a nearby, related larger 
area in today's economy is not evaluated by the DOJ. The economic 
development component of the ability of a larger organization to 
attract skiers from new, more distant markets is not considered at all 
by the DOJ.

The Maine Comparison

    The enclosed reference document, entitled ``Research Memorandum--
Profile of Visitors to Maine's Ski Resorts, Winter Ski Season 1994-
95,'' is worthy of the DOJ's review.
    In all probability, the habits of skiers should be fairly 
consistent regardless of the state they visit to ski. The greatest 
differences between the skiers visiting New Hampshire versus Maine, 
appear to be in dollars spent per ski visit and size of travel group. 
This can be readily understood as the Maine report reflects that they 
come to ski, while they seek a more broad based winter vacation 
experience when they visit the likes of Mount Washington Valley. 
Visitors simply do more crossover activities such as cross country 
skiing, shopping, and dining, and the ski areas are more community 
resort oriented.
    The most significant aspect of the study is the confirmation that 
the market is New England and not the Main day skier/eastern New 
England weekender. This is documented by both the NH and Maine data 
showing where the skiers come from, and providing interesting 
statistics on where else those same skiers ski throughout the winter 
season.
    Skier visitors to Main ski often. 16.6 times in Maine, 6.7 times in 
New Hampshire, 4.9 times in Vermont, and 8.4 times elsewhere. They are 
very diverse and mobile. If similar data was collected on skier 
visitors to New Hampshire, comparable figures would no doubt hold true.
     29% (93-94) of visitors to Maine also skied in NH, and 21% 
in VT.
     78% of Maine's market is New England based.
     5% of Maine's skier visitors come from NH versus 3% of New 
Hampshire's skier visitors coming from Maine.

Conclusion/Recommendation

    The Task Force, representing Mt. Washington Valley, concludes that 
the Department of Justice has erred in its decision. Replacing dated 
data, assumptions, and ski industry conceptions with current data, 
reality, facts of life and a more informed

[[Page 56031]]

understanding of the ski industry should allow the Department of 
Justice to modify, with clear conscience, its order. This report 
provides the DOJ with concise, factual information which, if known or 
available to DOJ during its evaluation and decision making process, 
would have naturally led to a different order.
    Mt. Cranmore, irrefutably, should remain in the merged entity. 
There is absolutely no reason, logic, statistical data, economic 
philosophy, formula of monopoly, or price control methodology that 
supports the divestiture of Mt. Cranmore. To the contrary, what truly 
serves the public's best interest and assures the success, viability 
and future sustainability of Mt. Cranmore, and the entire well being of 
the area's economy, is to modify your order and allow Mt. Cranmore to 
stay under the ownership and management of American Skiing Co.

Have They (DOJ) Gone Out of Bounds?

    Is the American public wrong? The Task Force has not found an iota 
of public opinion which supports DOJ's decision. Whether lay persons, 
consumers, ski resort operators, or professionals and associations why 
live by the existence, success of the industry, it is evident the DOJ 
is not welcome in the leisure industry. No one can understand why the 
DOJ feels it is within the DOJ's purview to interfere in a market place 
which attracts the consumer with available discretionary dollars.
    The skier market, for example, is going through major ``survival'' 
transition as has been strongly touched upon in this report, and it is 
the unanimous feeling of the Task Force that the DOJ is dead wrong in 
considering that the ski resort market place is a self-contained market 
place. The DOJ is acting like a trotter race horse wearing blinders--
they see the finish line, but move in a disciplined manner with no 
peripheral vision--they simply don't see the whole field, the big 
picture. The ski industry is not in competition with itself--through 
mergers, it is learning to survive against a much bigger market place 
commonly known as the Leisure & Sports Industry. The DOJ cannot close 
its eyes to gambling resorts, the Disney Worlds, the massive growth of 
cruise ships, the ever growing smaller world and access to warm weather 
resorts, adventure/experience trips, shopping (the #1 leisure activity 
in America), theater trips, arts-music, or simply paying equal to lift 
ticket ski prices to go to an L.A. Lakers basketball game in the 
upcoming season because they paid equal to the subject merger for one 
player's salary and percs.
    Because of the general economic condition of the ski industry, the 
DOT must carefully reinvestigate its Horizontal Merger Guidelines and, 
with open eyes and minds, recognize that the American Ski Co. decision 
has universal impact and could be the first step in devastating an 
American pastime, causing an adverse impact on an industry in a manner 
opposite from the proposed purpose of its actions.
    Should the consent decree not be reversed, the DOJ should seriously 
consider a careful review of the anti-trust act in relation to today's 
world.
    Speaking not only for Conway, Mt. Washington Valley, and the State 
of New Hampshire, but also for the entire ski industry and the 
discretionary dollar leisure-sports market place, the DOJ has gone out 
of bounds!

Research References and New Statistics and Information

1. Committee members
2. Dr. Larry Goss, Economist, Institute for NH Studies
3. National Ski Areas Associates, Colorado
4. Northern Economic Planners--Ski-NH, Inc. Skier Survey 1994-95 Season
5. The NH Ski Industry 1992-93--its contribution to the State's economy
6. Kottke National End-Of-Season Survey 1994-95 and Data from 95/96 
Survey
7. American Skiing Company--Confidential--Offering Memorandum
8. Department of Justice from Discussions to releasable information and 
base decision documents
9. Ski Area Management Magazine--July 1993 Articles by Jim Spring and 
David Rowan
10. Sno engineering: Market Research results for 1995/96 Ski Season
11. Mt. Washington Valley Chamber of Commerce
12. National Skier Opinion Survey--1992-1996--Leisure Trends Group
13. Roland Vononlsen, Economist, NH Electric Cooperative, Inc.
14. Wall Street Journal
15. State of New Hampshire Dept. of Resources & Economic Development
16. Ski Industries of America
17. Davidson-Peterson Associations, Inc., Research Memorandum for Ski 
Maine
18. US Department of Justice Horizontal Merger Guidelines

Kottke National End of Season Survey

    It is the Task Force's understanding that the DOJ used the 1993/94 
Kottke National End of Season Survey as a base professional reference.
    We strongly urge the DOJ to carefully review both the 1994/95 and 
the ``just off the press'' 1995/96 Kottke final reports prepared 
through the National Ski Areas Association.
    Significant changes and new areas of data and information have been 
integrated into the reports as compared to the 1993/94 version.
    Coping with infrastructure demands, capital needs, market trends, 
rapid industry movement toward partnerships/mergers to avoid becoming a 
historical statistic, and creative management are now all reflected in 
the report. DOJ will find the material educational and informational 
toward better understanding the ski industry of today. DOJ will find 
that the consumer experts are very supportive of Mount Washington 
Valley's Task Force position on Mount Cranmore and today's necessity 
that Cranmore remain part of the merged entity to serve the public's 
and the industry's best interest.

Industry Overview

    The U.S. ski market is a fragmented industry, with 516 ski areas in 
operation during the 1995-96 season. Over the past 15 years, 
participation in the sport of skiing has remained relatively stable, 
averaging approximately 50 million skier visits nationally. No single 
ski area accounted for more than approximately 3% of 1994-95 skier 
visits. The market is characterized by both regional and national 
competition.

                             National Ski Areas Association Regions and Skier Visits                            
                                                 [In thousands]                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Pacific               
              Season                 Northeast    Southeast     Midwest     Rocky mtn       West        Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1991/92...........................       12,252        4,425        6,535       17,687        9,936       50,835
1992/93...........................       13,217        4,660        6,978       18,602       10,575       54,032

[[Page 56032]]

                                                                                                                
1993/94...........................       13,718        5,808        7,364       17,503       10,244       54,637
1994/95...........................       11,265        4,746        6,907       18,412       11,346       52,676
1995/96*..........................       13,830        5,274        7,144       18,007        8,861       53,116
Northeast: CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, VT,                                                                              
 RI                                                                                                             
Midwest: IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, MO,                                                                                
 ND, NE, OH, SD, WI                                                                                             
Pacific West: AK, AZ, CA, NV, OR,                                                                               
 WA                                                                                                             
Southeast: AL, GA, KY, MD, NC, NJ,                                                                              
 PA, TN, TN, VA, WV                                                                                             
Rocky Mountain: CO, ID, MT, NM,                                                                                 
 UT, WY                                                                                                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 1994/95 KOTTKE NATIONAL END OF SEASON SURVEY.                                                           
* Preliminarily reported by Kottke National End of Season Survey 1995/96.                                       

    The ski industry is presently experiencing a period of 
consolidation and attrition, which is reflected in a significant 
decline in the total number of areas over the last ten years. 
Management believes that the driving forces behind both consolidation 
and attrition are the need to gain access to capital to maintain state-
of-the-art facilities and the need to retain professional management, 
and the inability of numerous resorts to keep pace with the competition 
with respect to one or both of these market forces. The trend among 
leading resorts is toward investing in improving technology and 
infrastructure so as to deliver a more consistent, high quality 
product.
    The NSAA defines the Northeast ski resort market as encompassing 
the New England states and New York, although the Company believes its 
market extends as far as the Mid-Atlantic states and southeastern 
Canada. The Northeast market has averaged approximately 12 million 
annual skier visits over the last fifteen years. Within the Northeast 
region, skiers can choose from among over 50 major resorts. The 
region's major resorts are concentrated in the mountainous areas of New 
England and eastern New York, with the bulk of skiers coming from the 
population centers located in eastern Massachusetts, southern New 
Hampshire, Connecticut, eastern New York, New Jersey and the 
Philadelphia area. Data collected at Sunday River indicate that 
approximately 43% of its weekend skiers reside in Massachusetts. 
Similar data collected at Killington and Mt. Snow indicate that 
approximately 23% and 35% of their weekend skiers, respectively, reside 
in New York, with high concentrations from Massachusetts, Connecticut, 
New Jersey and Vermont.
    The Northeast ski market consists of essentially two segments: day 
skiing and vacationers. The day skiing market is comprised of skiers 
who live within a four hour driving radius of a particular resort. Day 
skiers may stay for one to two days in a single trip. Approximately 35 
million people lie within the Company's day skiing market, which 
includes the New York and Boston metropolitan areas. The vacation 
market is a national market for destination resorts. While the 
Northeast does not draw significant numbers of vacationing skiers from 
the Western regions of the country, it competes with the Rocky Mountain 
and Pacific Northwest areas for Eastern vacationing skiers. Over the 
last several years, the Company has begun to compete in certain 
international markets, with the U.K. market historically producing the 
highest levels of international skier visits.
    Management believes that certain demographic trends and trends in 
the U.S. ski industry will be favorable for the Company's business 
outlook. The ``echo boom'' generation is of prime age for introduction 
to skiing and snowboarding. The trend toward consolidation is expected 
to permit larger, multiple resort companies to concentrate more of 
their marketing efforts on attracting new participants to the sport. 
Improved snowmaking technology and grooming techniques assure visitors 
better quality and more consistent conditions. High speed chair lifts 
also increase the quality of the experience by permitting more skiing 
during a resort visit. As an active family sport, skiing benefits from 
the special trends toward family vacationing and health consciousness. 
Finally, management believes its success with the first Summit Hotel 
program is directly related to the desire for affordable vacation 
property ownership among a growing population of skiers.

                                                         American Skiing Company Resort Overview                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                        1994-95  1995-96
                                           Skiable  Vertical                                             Snowmaking                      skier    skier 
                  Resort                   terrain    drop     Trails                Lifts                coverage   Groomers   Lodges   visits   visits
                                           (acres)                                                        (percent)                      (000s)   (000s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killington, Sherburne, Vermont...........      918     3,150      165   1 Gondola......................         60         29        7      826      905
                                                                        2 Detachable...................                                                 
                                                                       15 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        2 Surface......................                                                 
Sunday River, Newry, Maine...............      640     2,300      120   3 Detachable...................         92         11        4      535      589
                                                                       12 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        1 Surface......................                                                 
Mount Snow, Haystack, Dover, Vermont.....      751     1,700      130   1 Detachable...................         84         13        6      461      553
                                                                       20 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        3 Surface......................                                                 

[[Page 56033]]

                                                                                                                                                        
Sugarloaf Carrabassett, Valley, Maine....      515     2,820      116   1 Gondola......................         92         11        1      312      349
                                                                        1 Detachable...................                                                 
                                                                       11 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        1 Surface......................                                                 
Sugarbush, Warren, Vermont...............      413     2,600      111   4 Detachable...................         74          9        5      331      373
                                                                        4 Surface......................                                                 
                                                                       10 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
Attitash, Bear Peak, Bartlett, New             214     1,750       45   1 Detachable...................        100          5        2      182      201
 Hampshire.                                                             7 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        2 Surface......................                                                 
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Retained resorts...............    3,451  ........      687   2 Gondola......................         80         78       25    2,647    2,970
                                                                       12 Detachable...................                                                 
                                                                       75 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                       13 Surface......................                                                 
Waterville Valley, Waterville Valley, New      255     2,020       54   1 Detachable...................         96          6        3      207      257
 Hampshire.                                                             8 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        4 Surface......................                                                 
Mt. Cranmore, North Conway, New Hampshire      190     1,167       36   1 Detachable...................        100          3        2       95      125
                                                                        4 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        1 Surface......................                                                 
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal--Resorts to be divested.........      445  ........       90   2 Detachable...................         98          9        5      302      382
                                                                       12 Fixed Grip...................                                                 
                                                                        5 Surface......................                                                 
                                          ==============================================================================================================
                                           .......  ........  .......   2 Gondola......................  ..........  ........  .......  .......  .......
                                           .......  ........  .......  14 Detachable...................  ..........  ........  .......  .......  .......
                                           .......  ........  .......  87 Fixed Grip...................  ..........  ........  .......  .......  .......
      Total..............................    3,896  ........      777  18 Surface......................         82         87       30    2,949    3,352
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strategy

    Invest in Ski Experience. Management believes that the most 
efficient way to increase resort visitation is to provide the highest 
quality skiing available. The Company intends to continuously improve 
the infrastructure at each resort, emphasizing modernization and 
introducing at the SKI resorts the snowmaking and grooming successfully 
implemented at the Company's other ski areas. Management expects to 
invest approximately $50 million in improvements in lifts, snowmaking, 
grooming and trail design over the next three years, of which 
approximately 70% is designated for SKI resorts.

Alpine Experience

    The guests at Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore are very similar in 
relation to alpine experience. At Attitash/Bear Peak 92.5% ski, with 
40.1% intermediate, and 6.1% snowboard, with 33.3% advanced. At 
Cranmore 94.3% ski, with 41.9% intermediate, and only 5.2% snowboard, 
with 40% being intermediate (Refer to Tables 1 (sports) and 3 (ability 
level) for comparison).
    The average number of guests in a party at Attitash/Bear Peak and 
Cranmore is 6 and 5, respectively. Cranmore's lower guest count can be 
attributed to the higher percentage of their guests coming with their 
family as compared to Attitash/Bear Peak. At Cranmore 37.2% come with 
their family as compared to 30.1% at Attitash/Bear Peak. The guests at 
both mountains are more likely to come with friends than with family, 
groups or alone. A total of 39.0% of Attitash/Bear Peak and 34.0% of 
Cranmore guests come with their friends (Refer to Tables 2 (guest's 
party) and 4 (party size) for comparison).
    More than half of the guests at both mountains are return 
customers, with 65% at Attitash/Bear Peak and 61% at Cranmore (Refer to 
Table 5 for comparison of return guests). Overall, the guests are using 
the traditional lift ticket rather than the smart ticket or season 
pass. The traditional lift ticket is being used more at Cranmore 
(72.0%) than at Attitash/Bear Peak (64.3%) by the guests. Of the guests 
that have been to Attitash/Bear Peak, the traditional lift ticket is 
the choice by 62.6% of the guests as compared to only 24.8% choosing 
the smart ticket. Of the guests that have never been to Attitash/Bear 
Peak, 67.5% use the traditional ticket and 27.8% use the smart ticket. 
Cranmore guests, whether return skiers/riders or not, are using the 
traditional lift ticket more often than Attitash/Bear Peak guests.
    A higher percentage of Cranmore guests decides on which ski area to 
visit because of a positive past experience than did the Attitash/Bear 
Peak guests, with 44% and 35%, respectively. The second important 
reason was the convenience to where the guests lived, which represented 
about a quarter of the guests at both mountains (Refer to Table 16).
    The average number of times skied/rode last year was about thirteen 
times for both Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore guests. Attitash/Bear 
Peak guests skied/rode at Attitash a total of 280 times, followed by 
Sunday River (159 times), Wildcat (109 times), Cranmore (94 times) and 
Loon (83 times). On average, the guests skied/rode at Attitash/Bear 
Peak 9 times, followed by Maine areas 6 times and Out West 5 times. The 
guests at Cranmore skied/rode 86 times at Cranmore and 80 times at 
Attitash/Bear Peak. Sunday River was skied/rode 62 times by the guests 
and Wildcat 45 times. On average, Cranmore guests skied/rode 8 times in 
Maine, 7 times at Cranmore and 6 times Attitash/Bear

[[Page 56034]]

Peak (Refer to Tables 6 (number of visits) and 7 (areas skied last 
year) for comparison.
    The guests at both mountains have similar music taste. Soft Rock 
was the favorite format for guests at Attitash/Bear Peak (48.4%) and 
Cranmore (46.3%). This was followed by Hard Rock, which represented 
18.0% at Attitash/Bear Peak and 13.2% at Cranmore (Refer to Table 9 for 
radio format comparison).
    A total of 74.1% of Attitash/Bear Peak guests did not go night 
skiing last year and only 12.8% went once. A total of 65.8% of Cranmore 
guests did not go night skiing and even fewer, 9.8%, went only once 
(Refer to Table 8 for comparison).
    The Bear Peak experience for both Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore 
guests was not satisfying. The guests were only satisfied with the ease 
of riding the lift and all other respective categories received 
satisfaction ratings less than 8 (Refer to Table 10 for comparison of 
Bear Peak experience).

Guest Experience

    In comparing the guests' experience at Attitash/Bear Peak with 
Cranmore, many similarities occur. However, a number of differences 
also appear. The percentage of guests staying overnight is higher at 
Attitash/Bear Peak than at Cranmore, 86.1% compared to 78.2%, 
respectively (Refer to Table 11). The guests that are staying overnight 
are primarily staying at a friend's home/condominium or either at a 
home/condominium they rent. A total of 32% of Attitash/Bear Peak guests 
stay at a friends and 29% stay in a home/condominium they rent. A total 
of 29% of Cranmore guests stay with friends and 27% stay in a home/
condominium they rent (Refer to Table 12 for where visitors are 
staying). A higher percentage of Attitash/Bear Peak guests (55%) stay 
over for two nights than Cranmore guests (47%) (Refer to Tables 13 for 
length of stay and 14 for days skied/rode during trip).
    The best way to reach the Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore guest is 
through direct mail, followed by the radio. A total of 44.5% of the 
Attitash/Bear Peak guests and 50.8% of Cranmore guests believed that 
direct mail was the best way to reach them. This compares to radio, 
which represents 30.9% of Attitash/Bear Peak guests and 25.4% of 
Cranmore guests (Refer to Table 15). Ski magazine was the most 
frequently read magazines for guests at both mountains, but it was only 
rarely read (Refer to Table 17).

Program Participation

    A high percentage of Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore guests do not 
have an Edge Card (68.5% and 69.8%, respectively). In addition, a high 
percentage of the guests at both mountains are not familiar with the 
Edge Care (Refer to Table 18 and Table 19).
    The primary reason why Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore guests did 
not shop at CriSports was because they did not need anything (Refer to 
Tables 20 and 21).
    The traditional lift ticket is used more at Cranmore (72.4%) than 
at Attitash/Bear Peak (64.3%). As would be expected, the smart ticket 
is used more at Attitash/Bear Peak (26.1%) than at Cranmore (19.8%). 
Over half (52.6%) of the Attitash/Bear Peak guests and 43.6% of 
Cranmore guests selected their ticket because of the better perceived 
value (Refer to Tables 22, 23a and 23b for comparison of lift ticket 
and explanation for lift ticket).
    Only 37.3% and 31.8% of Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore guests, 
respectively, visit Attitash/Bear Peak during the summer (Refer to 
Table 24). Cranmore guests use the Alpine Slide and Water Slide 86% and 
80% of the time, respectively. Attitash/Bear Peak guests use the Alpine 
Slide and Water Slide only 56% and 45% of the time, respectively (Refer 
to Table 25 for a comparison of activities participated in).
    A high percentage (85%) of the guests at both mountains have not 
taken more than 1 or 2 lessons in the past five years. This might be 
attributed to the high percentage of intermediate and advanced skiers/
riders at both mountains. Roughly 40% of the guests at both mountains 
would take a lesson if special rates were offered (Refer to Tables 26 
and 27 for comparison of lessons and motivations for taking lessons).

Guest Information

    The gender distribution at Attitash/Bear Peak is 60.7% male. This 
compares to Cranmore, where 53.6% of the guests are males. 
Approximately half of the guests at Cranmore are married with children 
and 31.9% are single with no children. Of the Cranmore guests that have 
children, 47.8% have two children and 33.7% have only one child. A 
lower percentage (42.1%) of guests at Attitash/Bear Peak are married 
with children than at Cranmore, but a higher percentage (39%) are 
single with no children. Of the Attitash/Bear Peak guests that have 
children, 53.5% of guests have two children and 24.1% have one child. 
The average age for children at both mountains is ten years old. The 
average age of guests at Attitash/Bear Peak is 36 years old as compared 
to 38 at Cranmore (Refer to Tables 30 and 31 for comparison of 
children's age and visitor's age).
    The average household income for Cranmore guests is higher than 
Attitash/Bear Peak guests. A total of 26.5% of Cranmore guests have an 
income of $50,000 to $75,000 as compared to 21.6% of Attitash/Bear Peak 
guests. A total of 27.0% of Attitash/Bear Peak guests have an income of 
$20,000 to $50,000 as compared to 24.7% of Cranmore guests (Refer to 
Table 32 for comparison of household income).
    There is a higher percentage of Attitash/Bear Peak guests that own 
vacation property than Cranmore guests (30.8% and 25.8%, respectively) 
(Refer to Table 33). A total of 31.8% of the Attitash/Bear Peak guests 
that own vacation property have a household income of $125,000 and 
more. Approximately a third of Cranmore guests have a household income 
of $75,000 to $100,000. A higher percentage (56.9%) of Cranmore guests 
owns a single family home than Attitash/Bear Peak guests (45%). Thirty-
three percent of Attitash/Bear Peak guests own a condominium compared 
to only fifteen percent of Cranmore guests (Refer to Tables 34 for 
comparison of type vacation property owned and 35 for where vacation 
property is located and 36 represents the interest of obtaining 
information pertaining to vacation ownership). Approximately a quarter 
of the guests at both mountains are interested in information about 
vacation ownership.
    Guests that are skiing/riding at Attitash/Bear Peak and Cranmore 
are primarily traveling from Massachusetts, with 69% and 65%, 
respectively. Cranmore attracts more guests from New Hampshire (16%) 
than Attitash/Bear Peak (7%). Also, more guests are going to Cranmore 
from Maine (5%) than to Attitash/Bear Peak (2%) (Refer to Table 37 for 
comparison of the states where guests are coming from).
    Table 38 and Table 39 represent the likelihood of returning and the 
potential of recommending the ski area to a friend. Over half of the 
guests are likely to return next year and most every guest will 
recommend the ski area to a friend.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M

[[Page 56035]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.000



[[Page 56036]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.001



[[Page 56037]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.002



[[Page 56038]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.003



[[Page 56039]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.004



BILLING CODE 4410-01-C
    A total of 71.1% are not interested in learning more about vacation 
ownership at Attitash/Bear Peak. Of the percent of guests that do not 
want information,

[[Page 56040]]

70.1% currently do not own vacation property (Refer to Crosstab 
15:Interested in learning more about vacation ownership and Own 
vacation property).
    The majority of Cranmore guests are traveling from Massachusetts 
followed by New Hampshire (15.6%), Rhode Island (8.3%) and Maine 
(5.2%).

                                    Frequency of Where Guests Are Coming From                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Valid         Cum.   
           Value label                       Value             Frequency     Percent      percent      percent  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   MA.......................          117         60.9         60.9         60.9
                                   NH.......................           30         15.6         15.6         76.6
                                   RI.......................           16          8.3          8.3         84.9
                                   Missing..................           12          6.3          6.3         91.1
                                   ME.......................           10          5.2          5.2         96.4
                                   CT.......................            2          1.0          1.0         97.4
                                   NJ.......................            2          1.0          1.0         98.4
                                   NY.......................            2          1.0          1.0         99.5
                                   OH.......................            1           .5           .5        100.0
                                                             ---------------------------------------            
      Total......................  .........................          192        100.0        100.0             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16.7% of the guests come from the Boston area and 12.5% come from 
Northern Massachusetts

                         Frequency of 3-digit Zip Codes of Where Guests Are Coming From                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Valid         Cum.   
           Value label                       Value             Frequency     Percent      percent      percent  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Mass......................  021......................           32         16.7         16.7         16.7
NE Mass..........................  019......................           24         12.5         12.5         29.2
SE N.H...........................  038......................           19          9.9          9.9         39.1
                                   Missing..................           13          6.8          6.8         45.8
Providence R.I...................  028......................           13          6.8          6.8         52.6
SE Mass..........................  020......................            9          4.7          4.7         57.3
NE R.I...........................  027......................            9          4.7          4.7         62.0
NE Mass..........................  018......................            8          4.2          4.2         66.1
SE Mass..........................  023......................            8          4.2          4.2         70.3
South N.H........................  030......................            7          3.6          3.6         74.0
Cape Mass........................  026......................            6          3.1          3.1         77.1
Worcester Mass...................  015......................            5          2.6          2.6         79.7
Central Mass.....................  017......................            5          2.6          2.6         82.3
South M.E........................  039......................            5          2.6          2.6         84.9
                                   040......................            4          2.1          2.1         87.0
                                   014......................            3          1.6          1.6         88.5
                                   029......................            3          1.6          1.6         90.1
                                   010......................            2          1.0          1.0         91.1
                                   016......................            2          1.0          1.0         92.2
                                   025......................            2          1.0          1.0         93.2
                                   031......................            2          1.0          1.0         94.3
                                   022......................            1           .5           .5         94.8
                                   032......................            1           .5           .5         95.3
                                   033......................            1           .5           .5         95.8
                                   041......................            1           .5           .5         96.4
                                   064......................            1           .5           .5         96.9
                                   069......................            1           .5           .5         97.4
                                   086......................            1           .5           .5         97.9
                                   088......................            1           .5           .5         98.4
                                   148......................            1           .5           .5         99.0
                                   380......................            1           .5           .5         99.5
                                   451......................            1           .5           .5        100.0
                                                             ---------------------------------------            
      Total......................  .........................          192        100.0        100.0             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refer to Appendix B for the location of Cranmore guests by 3-digit 
zip codes.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M

[[Page 56041]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.005



BILLING CODE 4410-01-C

[[Page 56042]]

    The NSAA ECS 1995/96 chart was not able to be reprinted in the 
Federal Register, however, it may be inspected in Suite 215, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Legal Procedures Unit, 325 7th St., N.W., 
Washington, D.C. at (202) 514-2481 and at the Office of the Clerk of 
the United States Court for the District of Columbia.
    95-96 Ski Season Study is not complete per Larry Goss. 7/17/96.
    Items with an asterisk are from 95-96 study, all other information 
is from 94-95 study.
* 2,310,000 Skier Days
State of Origin:
    86% residents of New England
    55% residents of Massachusetts
    21% residents of New Hampshire
    4% residents of Rhode Island
    3% residents of Maine/Connecticut
* Decision Maker:
    1. Male age 35-45
    2. Joint decision male/female
    3. Female
Principal Income:
    37% $75,000 & above
    31% $50-75,000
Skill level:
    42% considered themselves Intermediate
    33% considered themselves Advanced
    9% considered themselves Expert
Travel Party Characteristics:
    41% Families
    40% Families/Friends
Most Popular Activities:
    85% Alpine skiing
    31% Shopping
* Spending:
    Total spending on ski trips to the State, $185,000,000
Key Words Used to Describe New Hampshire Skiing:
    1. Beautiful
    2. Scenic
    3. Friendly

    The chart on page 38 of the National Skier Opinion Survey was not 
able to be reprinted in the Federal Register, however, it may be 
inspected in Suite 215, U.S. Department of Justice, Legal Procedures 
Unit, 325 7th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. at (202) 514-2481 and at the 
Office of the Clerk of the United States Court for the District of 
Columbia.

SKI-NH, Inc., Skier Survey Results, 1994-5 Season

 October 1995

The Institute for New Hampshire Studies, Plymouth State College, 
Plymouth, NH 03264
Northern Economic Planners, Concord, NH 03301

Introduction

    SKI-NH, Inc. retained The Institute for New Hampshire Studies at 
Plymouth State College to undertake a study of the impact of the ski 
areas in New Hampshire on the state's economy. This economic impact 
study included two surveys: a survey of the skiers and a survey of the 
ski areas. This report evaluates the compilations of the returned skier 
survey forms and is intended to help SKI-NH with its marketing program. 
There also will be a separate economic impact report that will make use 
of both surveys and additional information.
    During the 1994-5 skiing season, seven alpine ski areas agreed to 
provide attendance information on a monthly basis. This information is 
the basis for the estimate that 72 percent of all skier days during the 
1994-5 season occurred between November 1994 and February 1995 and 28 
percent were during the months of March and April 1995. When this 
monthly attendance data is compared with the compilation of the 
returned survey forms, it became obvious that Gunstock Ski Area was 
over represented among the returned forms.
    The information which follows in this report is based on the 
assignment of smaller weights to Gunstock returned forms versus those 
for other ski areas and larger weights for the winter season forms 
versus the spring season forms. As a result, the information which 
follows will be somewhat different from the compilation of all the 
returned survey forms which has been provided to SKI-NH.
    Plymouth State College provided SKI-NH with 3,000 survey forms to 
distribute to skiers by the ski areas during the months of December 
through April. There were 461 useable forms returned, for a 15.4 
percent return rate. This overall return rate was lower than 
anticipated. Almost 40 percent of the returned forms were from skiers 
who visited the state during the months of March and April. Over 44 
percent of the forms were from skiers who had visited Gunstock, far 
higher than that ski area's share of the state's market. The skiers who 
visited Gunstock had somewhat different characteristics than those who 
skied at areas farther north. The spring season skiers also have 
slightly different characteristics than the winter season skiers. It 
was for these reasons that the returned forms were weighted, as 
outlined above, so that the reported results are more representative of 
the skiers who did visit the state's ski areas. Also, the U.S. Travel 
Data Center winter 1995 survey of travelers to New Hampshire has been 
used to adjust the ratio of day trip to overnight skiers and to 
increase average spending per day and per trip in both this report and 
in the impact study.

Attendance at Ski Areas

    The information provided monthly by the seven ski areas as the 
season progressed, plus additional information on the entire season 
from other ski areas, currently indicates that there were 1.88 million 
alpine and cross-country skier days during the 1994-5 season. This is 
about 16 percent below the record setting 1993-4 season which had 2.24 
million skier days. Month to month comparisons between these two 
seasons show that there was great variation in the rate of decrease 
among these months, with the greatest percentage declines for the 
months of January and April. Overall, the winter months were down about 
14 percent from the previous year, but the spring months (March and 
April) were down by 20 percent from the previous year, due to the 
relatively warm and rainy spring weather.
    The skier survey forms, state traffic count data and rooms and 
meals tax information indicate that skiers who own second homes and 
condominiums near ski areas had only a very small decline in visits to 
ski areas. Other skiers on overnight trips appear to have declined by 
about eight percent in number during the winter, with a larger decrease 
during the spring. The largest decrease appears to have been for day 
trip skiers when the 1993-4 and 1994-5 skiing seasons are compared. The 
U.S. Travel Data Center survey of winter 1995 visitors to New Hampshire 
indicates a 6.8 percent increase in visitors to New Hampshire during 
winter 1995 in comparison with winter 1994, but with a 21 percent 
decrease in visitors on one day trips. New Hampshire DOT traffic 
counters show a 1.8 percent decrease for the those counters near ski 
areas, but a 4.1 percent increase for all counters state-wide.

State of Origin

    Skiing in New Hampshire is primarily an activity for residents of 
New England. About 86 percent of all skiers are residents of the six 
New England states. An additional five percent came from the three Mid-
Atlantic states and three percent came from Canada. Almost six percent 
of the ski parties came from the other 41 states and just over one 
percent came from outside North America. Canadian skiers are far more 
likely to come during the spring than the winter. It was a surprise 
that as many Canadians came this year, due to the unfavorable currency 
exchange rate. The second surprise was the relatively large number of 
ski parties from Florida

[[Page 56043]]

in both the winter and the spring. As in other years, spring skiers are 
more likely to be from outside the Northeastern United States than 
winter skiers.
    Table 1 shows the states and provinces which provide at least one 
percent of all skiers visiting New Hampshire. The other states from 
which skiers returned forms during the winter months included: Alabama, 
Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The other 
states from which skiers returned forms during the spring months were: 
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Vermont. Each of these 
states had less than one percent each of the returned forms. The U.S. 
Travel Data Center survey of winter 1995 visitors to New Hampshire 
found 82 percent were from New England and 11 percent from the three 
Middle Atlantic States. Canadians and other foreigners were not 
surveyed.

                                 Table 1.--Percent of Skiers by State of Origin                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Winter months   Spring months   Entire season
                         State/province                              (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut.....................................................             3.1             2.2             2.8
Florida.........................................................             2.7             2.1             2.5
Maine...........................................................             3.8             1.0             3.0
Massachusetts...................................................            51.7            63.2            54.9
New Hampshire...................................................            22.2            16.4            20.6
New Jersey......................................................             1.3             3.1             1.8
New York........................................................             2.7             1.0             2.2
Rhode Island....................................................             5.4             1.4             4.3
Nova Scotia.....................................................             0.4             2.1             0.9
Ontario.........................................................             0.5             5.2             1.8
Other states....................................................             4.6             2.3             4.0
Outside N Am....................................................             1.6             0.0             1.2
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................           100.0           100.0           100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Trip Decision-Maker

    The decision-maker for the skiing trip was most often male and 
between the ages of 35 and 45. Table 2 shows the age break-out for the 
trip decision-maker and Table 3 shows the sex of the decision-maker. 
Table 4 shows the household income of the trip decision-maker. The trip 
decision-maker during the winter months was slightly younger in average 
age, in comparison with the spring months' decision-maker. This may 
reflect the fact that younger skiers appear to be more likely to take 
day trips at the more southerly ski areas, which are not open as long 
during the spring months as the more northerly ski areas. A joint 
decision regarding the ski trip appears to be more common for the 
spring months than for the winter months, but mostly due to a reduction 
in the proportion of females who make the trip decision in the spring.

                                      Table 2.--Age of Trip Decision-Maker                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                            Age group                                (percent        (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18-24...........................................................             7.5             6.5             7.2
25-34...........................................................            14.5            17.5            15.3
35-44...........................................................            43.3            43.5            43.4
45-54...........................................................            27.1            23.6            26.1
55-64...........................................................             5.7             5.7             5.7
65+.............................................................             1.9             3.2             2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      Table 3.--Sex of Trip Decision-Maker                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                               Sex                                   (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Male............................................................            40.3            38.7            39.9
Female..........................................................            28.2            21.4            26.3
Joint...........................................................            31.5            39.9            33.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The share of all skiers in the income groups over $75,000 was 
higher for the spring skier than for the winter skier. Household income 
for skiers are higher (on-average) than visitors to New Hampshire 
during the other seasons of the year and are significantly higher than 
the average household income for the state's residents.

                                           Table 4.--Household Income                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                          Income group                               (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<$20,000........................................................             4.7             2.8             4.2
$20-35,000......................................................             9.7             9.9             9.8
35-50,000.......................................................            15.9            22.9            17.9

[[Page 56044]]

                                                                                                                
50-75,000.......................................................            34.0            23.9            30.8
75-100,000......................................................            16.5            20.1            17.5
100,000+........................................................            19.2            21.2            19.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The level of capability for skiers appears to be different for the 
winter and the spring. The spring months skier is more likely to be an 
expert and less likely to be a novice or beginning skier in comparison 
with the winter months skier. Table 5 shows the level of capability of 
the trip decision-maker.

                                        Table 5.--Skiing Capability Level                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                              Level                                  (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novice..........................................................            19.3             9.2            16.5
Intermediate....................................................            40.7            44.1            41.6
Advanced........................................................            33.5            32.4            33.2
Expert..........................................................             6.5            14.3             8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The trip decision-maker takes an average of 7.0 skiing trips to New 
Hampshire if they returned a survey form during the winter and 7.3 
skiing trips to New Hampshire if they returned the form during the 
spring. Those skiers who returned the forms indicated that 65 percent 
of them plan to visit the state on vacation during the summer and 53 
percent of them plan to visit during the fall. These relatively high 
percentages may reflect the fact that a significant share of those who 
returned the forms have a second home, condominium or time-share unit 
or friends or relatives in New Hampshire, as will be discussed later in 
this report.

Travel Party Characteristics

    Most people usually ski with their family members and/or friends. 
Only a small share of skiers in New Hampshire are part of a group party 
(such as a ski club), probably about four percent of all skiers. Very 
few people are on a skiing trip by themselves--less than two percent. 
Table 6 shows the make-up of ski parties based on the returned survey 
forms. The average size of the travel party in 1994-5 is 14 percent 
larger than was reported in the 1992-3 season survey. As noted above, a 
large share of those parties which returned forms were on overnight 
trips than is estimated for all ski trips. Overnight ski parties have 
larger sized travel parties (on average) than do those on day trips.
    When U.S. Travel Data Center information is considered, the average 
travel party size is estimated to be 4.79 for the winter, and 4.62 for 
the spring and 4.74 for the season. This is because day trip parties 
are usually smaller in size and are less likely to be clubs and 
organizational trips.

                                     Table 6.--Travel Party Characteristics                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                          Party make-up                              (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family only.....................................................            42.2            37.6            40.9
Friends only....................................................            12.4            15.4            13.2
Family & Friends................................................            40.1            41.0            40.4
Clubs & Groups..................................................             3.5             4.2             3.7
Alone...........................................................             1.3             1.4             1.3
Other...........................................................             0.5             0.4             0.5
Average size....................................................            5.14            4.87            5.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Activities While on This Trip

    The forms for this skier survey were handed out at both alpine and 
cross country ski areas. Alpine skiing was both the most important 
activity and the most common activity undertaken while on this trip. 
Table 7 shows the most important activity which was undertaken on the 
trip, while Table 8 shows the second most important activity. It 
appears that alpine skiers engaged in a variety of other outdoor 
activities, shopping and entertainment while on their trip, with 
shopping ranked highest of the second most important activities (see 
Table 8). Those who indicated that visiting friends and relatives or 
attending business meetings or a conference as the most important 
activity were very likely to have alpine skiing as their second most 
important activity.

                                        Table 7.--Most Important Activity                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                            Activity                                 (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine ski......................................................            82.0            92.8            85.0
Snowboard.......................................................             1.5             1.1             1.4
X-country ski...................................................             4.0             0.5             3.0
Snowmobiling....................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
Other Outdoor...................................................             1.1             1.1             1.1

[[Page 56045]]

                                                                                                                
Shopping........................................................             1.1             0.0             0.8
Indoor Rec/Ent..................................................             0.9             0.0             0.6
Visit Frnd/Rel..................................................             7.9             4.0             6.8
Business trip...................................................             1.5             0.5             1.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 8.--Second Most Important Activity                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                            Activity                                 (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine ski......................................................            17.1            11.0            15.4
Snowboard.......................................................             8.0            19.2            11.1
X-country ski...................................................             9.3             4.1             7.8
Snowmobiling....................................................             2.9             0.3             2.2
Other Outdoor...................................................             8.6             5.4             7.7
Shopping........................................................            27.2            40.5            30.9
Indoor Rec/Ent..................................................            12.1             9.5            11.4
Visit Frnd/Rel..................................................            14.2            10.1            13.1
Business trip...................................................             0.7             0.0             0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 9 shows the activities which those completing the survey 
forms indicated that they participated in while they were on this trip. 
Alpine skiing, cross country skiing, snowboarding and other outdoor 
recreation (hiking, skating, snowmobiling, ice fishing, etc.) were all 
important outdoor activities. Shopping, indoor entertainment and 
visiting friends and relatives were other important trip activities. 
Cross country skiing and other outdoor activities were more common as 
important activities during the winter months than for the spring, most 
likely due to the lack of snow at cross country ski areas and a lack of 
safe ice on lakes during the spring months of 1995.

                                     Table 9.--Participated in This Activity                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                            Activity                                 (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine ski......................................................            92.6            98.6            94.3
Snowboard.......................................................             8.8            11.1             9.2
X-country ski...................................................            17.5             9.5            15.3
Snowmobiling....................................................             4.4             6.4             5.0
Other Outdoor...................................................            22.5            14.3            20.2
Shopping........................................................            53.6            52.8            53.3
Indoor Rec/Ent..................................................            28.2            21.2            26.2
Visit Frnd/Rel..................................................            24.9            21.0            23.8
Business trip...................................................             2.9             3.1             3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accommodations for Multi-Day Trips

    Ski parties which responded to the skier survey were very likely to 
be on a multi-day trip. It appears that 67 percent of all winter ski 
trip parties responding were on a multi-day trip and that 71 percent of 
the spring season parties responding were on such a trip. This averages 
out to 68 percent for the season, for those parties that responded. 
These percentages are estimated as this section of the survey form was 
not completely filled out by all respondents.
    For those parties which did stay overnight, the average stay was 
relatively lengthy. Winter month overnight ski parties stayed an 
average of 5.24 nights, compared to an average of 3.72 nights in the 
1992-3 season and spring overnight ski parties stayed an average of 
6.24 nights, compared to an average of 3.03 nights in the 1992-3 
season. The average for the entire season was 5.52 nights for overnight 
ski parties, compared to an average of 3.49 nights in the 1992-3 
season. While the largest number of parties on overnight trips stayed 
for only two nights, a significant share of ski groups stayed for seven 
nights or longer. The average stay for all ski parties (including day 
trips) for those responding to the survey was 3.53 nights during the 
winter months and 4.43 nights for the spring months. This produced an 
average of 3.78 nights for all trips for the season.
    The U.S. Travel Data Center information for New Hampshire indicates 
that skiers on overnight trips were far more likely to complete the 
INHS survey form than skiers on day trips. As a result, it is estimated 
that overnight trip skiers were 58 percent of all skiers days, up from 
47 percent during the 1992-3 season, but below the 68 percent figure 
for those parties which returned the forms. When this assumption of 58 
percent of all skiers days by overnight visitors is used, then the 
average stay increases to 3.63 nights for the winter, 5.59 nights for 
the spring and 4.18 nights for the season. These averages for 1994-5 
compare with 1.72 nights for winter 1992-3; 1.90 nights for spring 1993 
and 1.78 nights for the 1992-3 season--when a larger share of all 
skiers were on day trips.
    Table 10 shows the percentage of overnight ski parties staying at 
each different type of accommodation. In contrast, Table 11 shows the 
share of length of stay spent at each type of accommodation. A 
comparison of Tables 10 and 11 shows that the shortest visits were by 
those who stayed at motels, hotels and resorts and at inns and bed and 
breakfast establishments. This is the case as the percentage share

[[Page 56046]]

of length of stay in Table 11 is less than the percentage staying at 
this type of accommodation as shown in Table 10. Those parties which 
stayed the most nights were in second homes or camping in RV's. Parties 
staying in a condominium (owned or rented) or staying at a place owned 
by a friend or relative were near the average in terms of length of 
stay. Spring season skiers were more likely to be attracted to stay at 
a hotel, motel, resort, inn and bed and breakfast and less likely to be 
camped in an RV than the winter season skier. Spring skiers were more 
likely to stay longer than winter skiers.

                                 Table 10.--Stayed at This Type of Accommodation                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                              Type                                   (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motel/resort....................................................            25.2            33.8            27.6
B&B/Inn.........................................................             5.6             8.8             6.5
Second home.....................................................            14.9            11.8            14.0
Condominium.....................................................            22.4            17.8            21.1
Friend/Rel......................................................            26.8            24.6            26.2
Other *.........................................................             5.1             3.2             4.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most in the ``Other'' category were camping.                                                                  


                        Table 11.--Share of Length of Stay at This Type of Accommodation                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                              Type                                   (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motel/resort....................................................            15.4            27.4            18.5
B&B/Inn.........................................................             2.8             3.2             2.9
Second home.....................................................            20.2            25.5            21.7
Condominium.....................................................            23.8            18.3            22.6
Friend/Rel......................................................            25.2            23.3            24.5
Other *.........................................................            12.6             2.3             9.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Most in the ``Other'' category were camping.                                                                  

    Compared with the 1992-3 season, those on overnight trips in 1994-5 
were far more likely to be staying in a second home, property of a 
friend or relative or to be camping. Stays at motels, resorts and 
rented condominums were fewer during the 1994-5 season than for the 
1992-3 season. The U.S. Travel Data Center information for winter 1995 
on type of accommodations used was consistent with the information 
provided by the skiers. As those who stay at hotels, motels and resorts 
stay for a shorter period of time than other overnight visitors, their 
decrease in number is a second reason (after the reduction in day 
trips) for the increase in the average length of stay by skiing parties 
during the 1994-5 season in comparison with the 1992-3 season.

Travel Party Spending

    The average spending per travel party from those parties which 
responded is shown in Table 12, but has been adjusted upward to reflect 
travel spending reported for all winter 1995 visitors to New Hampshire 
by the U.S. Travel Data Center. Even with this adjustment, average 
spending per visitor day may appear to be low. The reason for this is 
that 54.3% fewer visitor days by ski parties were spent in paid 
overnight accommodations than was the case in 1992-3. This was because 
49.3% of overnight visitors stayed in second homes, condominium or time 
share units and/or accommodations owned by friends and relatives. 
Spending at the ski area (Recreation in Table 12) was a relatively 
large share (31%) of all spending. Spending at grocery stores is also 
relatively high (5%) and reflects the relatively large share of 
overnight visitors who stayed in accommodations with kitchens.

                                    Table 12.--Average Travel Party Spending                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Category                                  Winter          Spring          Season    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lodging.........................................................         $384.34         $517.58         $421.65
Restaurants.....................................................          406.50          529.76          441.01
Groceries.......................................................           82.39          103.52           88.31
State Liquor....................................................           19.25           27.40           21.53
Transportation..................................................           82.05          121.78           93.17
Recreation......................................................          545.18          707.26          590.56
Shopping........................................................          203.94          299.89          230.81
Services & Other................................................           33.27           24.36           30.78
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................         1756.92         2331.55         1917.82
Per person trip.................................................          366.79          504.66          404.60
Per visitor day.................................................           79.22           76.58           78.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, the average length of the spring skiing trip 
was longer than the winter trip. Thus, spending per party trip and per 
visitor trip was higher for the spring season, even though spending per 
visitor day is

[[Page 56047]]

lower during the spring months than for the winter months.

Obtaining and Using Travel Information

    The skiers were asked several questions to determine how they 
obtained and used information in order to plan and undertake the ski 
trip. Table 13 shows the single most important source of information 
used to plan and undertake the ski trip. Previous trips and advice from 
friends and relatives were the two most important sources. Snow phone 
information, ticket promotions and ski area brochures were also very 
important.

                                Table 13.--Most Important Information Source Used                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                             Source                                  (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior trips.....................................................            36.1            31.2            34.7
Friends/Rel.....................................................            20.8             9.6            17.7
Snow phone......................................................            13.3             7.6            11.7
Ticket promotion................................................             3.9            17.5             7.7
Ski area brochures..............................................             3.8             6.9             4.7
Newspaper story.................................................             3.8             3.5             3.7
NH Winter Vis. G................................................             3.2             2.7             3.1
Weather report..................................................             2.5             4.4             3.0
Magazine story..................................................             3.3             0.5             2.5
TV ad...........................................................             2.5             1.7             2.3
Regional Guides.................................................             2.5             1.7             2.3
Newspaper ad....................................................             0.6             4.2             1.6
TV story........................................................             0.7             2.7             1.3
Radio ad........................................................             1.2             0.7             1.1
Radio story.....................................................             1.3             0.4             1.0
SKI-NH Mag......................................................             0.6             1.5             0.9
Ski Show........................................................             0.0             1.7             0.5
Travel Agents...................................................             0.0             1.3             0.4
Magazine ad.....................................................             0.0             0.2             0.1
Billboard ad....................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 14 shows the second most important source of information used 
in planning and undertaking the skiing trip. Previous trips and advice 
from friends and relatives are still the two most important sources of 
information used, but are relatively less important proportionally 
among the second most important sources. Those who selected one of 
these two as the most important source of information were very likely 
to name snow phones, weather reports, ski area brochures and ticket 
promotions as their second leading source of information.

                            Table 14.--Second Most Important Information Source Used                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                             Source                                  (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior trips.....................................................            12.1            20.8            14.5
Friends/Rel.....................................................            11.8            14.6            12.6
Snow phone......................................................            10.9             9.2            10.4
Weather report..................................................            12.5             4.6            10.3
Ski area brochures..............................................            12.5             4.2            10.2
Ticket promotion................................................            10.4             7.0             9.4
Newspaper story.................................................             6.0             7.1             6.3
Radio ad........................................................             6.1             6.2             6.1
NH Winter VIS.G.................................................             2.9             2.1             2.7
TV ad...........................................................             2.3             3.2             2.6
Radio story.....................................................             2.3             3.2             2.6
Magazine story..................................................             1.4             4.2             2.3
Ski Show........................................................             1.6             2.6             1.9
SKI-NH Mag......................................................             1.6             1.9             1.7
Regional Guides.................................................             0.8             2.8             1.4
TV story........................................................             1.5             1.3             1.4
Magazine ad.....................................................             1.4             1.5             1.4
Newspaper ad....................................................             0.8             3.0             1.4
Travel Agents...................................................             1.5             0.2             1.1
Billboard ad....................................................             0.8             0.0             0.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 15 shows the percentage of responding parties which said that 
they made use of each of the various sources of information. Previous 
trips remained the most important source of information used. However, 
a much wider range of sources of information were used which may not 
have been the most important or second most important sources of 
information as listed in Tables 13 and 14. There were also differences 
between the winter and spring months in the importance of some of the 
types of information used, as in the previous tables. The largest 
differences between the winter and spring months in Table 15 for ticket 
promotions and SKI-NH Magazine, both

[[Page 56048]]

of which were used more frequently during the spring months.

                                     Table 15.--Used This Information Source                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                             Source                                  (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior trips.....................................................            69.6            77.4            71.8
Ski area brochures..............................................            36.6            36.6            36.6
Friends/Rel.....................................................            38.0            30.4            35.9
Snow phone......................................................            34.8            34.3            34.7
Ticket promotion................................................            19.2            31.5            22.6
Weather report..................................................            22.8            21.9            22.5
Newspaper story.................................................            19.1            22.4            20.0
NH Winter Vis. G................................................            20.3            16.9            19.3
Newspaper ad....................................................            18.2            20.2            18.8
SKI-NH Mag......................................................            14.1            27.9            18.0
Magazine story..................................................            16.5            18.7            17.1
Radio ad........................................................            13.5            18.9            15.0
Regional Guides.................................................            12.9            19.7            14.8
Magazine ad.....................................................            14.9            13.5            14.5
TV ad...........................................................            13.9            15.2            14.3
TV story........................................................            12.3            16.3            13.4
Radio story.....................................................            10.4            13.5            11.3
Billboard ad....................................................             5.8             6.7             6.1
Ski Show........................................................             3.0             5.6             3.7
Travel Agents...................................................             2.1             3.2             2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``information source use index'' score in Table 16 is obtained 
by multiplying the most used source percentage by three, the second 
most used source percentage multiplied by two and the information 
source used percentage by one; then adding these scores and dividing by 
six. This provides a weighted score for each of the information sources 
used by winter and spring months and for the season.
    The results of this process indicate that prior trips remain the 
most important/used source of information. During the winter months the 
second most important/used source is advice from friends and relatives, 
followed by snow phones. However, during the spring months the second 
most important/used source is ticket promotions, followed by advice 
from friends and relatives. There are other differences between winter 
and spring in the importance and use of the various information 
sources, although weather reports and ski area brochures tend to rank 
high for both winter and spring. SKI-NH Magazine, regional guides and 
radio advertisements were more frequently used during the spring months 
than during the winter months. The three lowest ranking sources for 
both winter and spring were: ski shows, billboard advertising and 
travel agents.

                 Table 16.--Information Source Use Index                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Winter   Spring   Season
                    Source                      index    index    index 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior trips..................................     33.7     35.4     34.2
Friends/Rel..................................     20.7     14.7     19.0
Snow phone...................................     16.1     12.6     15.1
Ski area brochures...........................     12.2     11.0     11.9
Ticket promotion.............................      8.6     16.3     10.8
Weather report...............................      9.2      7.4      8.9
TV ad........................................      9.2      4.5      7.9
Newspaper story..............................      7.1      7.9      7.3
NH Winter Vis.G..............................      6.0      4.9      5.7
Radio ad.....................................      4.9      5.6      5.1
Magazine story...............................      4.9      4.8      4.9
Newspaper ad.................................      3.6      6.5      4.4
Regional Guides..............................      3.7      5.1      4.1
SKI-NH Mag...................................      3.2      6.0      4.0
Radio story..................................      3.2      3.5      3.3
TV story.....................................      2.9      4.5      3.3
Magazine ad..................................      3.0      2.9      3.0
Ski Show.....................................      1.0      2.7      1.5
Billboard ad.................................      1.2      1.1      1.2
Travel Agents................................      0.9      1.3      1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following table (Table 17) reorganizes the information shown in 
Table 16 by grouping the information sources by the level of control 
that the ski areas have over the design and use made of this 
information and its distribution. The average index score for the 
entire season is used to rank the information sources within these 
categories. For most of the information categories the ski areas either 
provide or produce the information directly or have other organizations 
provide it or distribute it on their behalf. This includes various 
types of media in which advertising occurs.
    Skiers do make significant use of information which is produced 
directly by the ski areas in making trip decisions. Most day trip 
skiers also want up-to-date information as part of the trip decision 
process, as indicated by the importance of snow phones, weather reports 
and TV and radio advertising. Advice from friends and relatives and 
regional guides were also more likely to be sued by those on day trips. 
The information sources more likely to be used by skiers on overnight 
trips than those on day trips were: prior trips, ticket promotions, NH 
Winter Visitors Guide, SKI-NH Magazine and travel agents.

 Table 17.--Control of Information Source and Importance/Use by Ski Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Season use  
                         Source                                index    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Control Over Information Source:                                     
Prior trips.............................................            34.2
Friends/Relatives.......................................            19.0
Weather report..........................................             8.9
Indirect/Limited Control Over Information Source:                       
Snow phone..............................................            15.1
Newspaper story.........................................             7.3
Magazine story..........................................             4.9
TV story................................................             3.3
Radio story.............................................             3.3
Travel Agent............................................             1.0
Direct/Significant Control Over Information Source:                     

[[Page 56049]]

                                                                        
Ski area brochures......................................            11.9
Ticket promotion........................................            10.8
TV ad...................................................             7.9
NH Winter Visitors Guide................................             5.7
Radio ad................................................             5.1
Newspaper ad............................................             4.4
Regional Guides.........................................             4.1
SKI-NH Magazine.........................................             4.0
Magazine ad.............................................             3.0
Ski Show................................................             1.5
Billboard ad............................................             1.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The skiers were asked how they used the above sources of 
information to make trip decisions. Table 18 summarizes how this 
information was used. Almost one-third noted that they did not make any 
use of the information sources listed, although it is very likely that 
this group did make use of their knowledge from previous trips. 
Selecting the ski area(s) was the major use made of this information.

                               Table 18.--Information Were Sources Used to Select                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Winter          Spring          Season    
                            Activity                                 (percent)       (percent)       (percent)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ski Areas.......................................................            47.3            39.5            45.1
Lodging.........................................................            14.7            19.1            15.9
Dining..........................................................            16.7            18.5            17.2
Itinerary.......................................................             9.2            10.0             9.4
Shopping Areas..................................................            13.6             8.7            12.2
Did not use information.........................................            25.9            37.1            29.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The skiers were asked to provide three key words that best 
described New Hampshire. In Table 19 the top ten words mentioned are 
ranked with the most weight if the word was listed first, less weight 
if second and no weight if listed third. There was some variation among 
the winter and spring months in the ranking of these words, but only 13 
different words appeared on the top ten lists for the winter and spring 
months. The three words which made either the winter or spring top ten 
list, but did not make the top ten list for the season (shown in Table 
19) are: ``rural,'' ``natural'' and `'safe.'' ``Beautiful'' was listed 
three times as often as the second place word: ``scenic.'' These two 
words plus ``friendly'' and ``clean'' are very often used to describe 
other seasons of the year. ``Relaxing'' and ``peaceful'' are very 
common words which appear in other spring season surveys. ``Great,'' 
``fun,'' ``mountains'' and ``cold'' are words which must be associated 
with skiing as they have not been found to be highly ranked in other 
surveys of New Hampshire visitors.

                          Table 19.--Key Words                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Winter   Spring   Season
                     Word                        rank     rank     rank 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful....................................        1        1        1
Scenic.......................................        2        2        2
Friendly.....................................        3        5        3
Relaxing.....................................        4        2        4
Great........................................        5        7        5
Fun..........................................        7        4        6
Clean........................................        6        8        7
Mountains....................................        8        9        8
Cold.........................................        9        9        9
Peaceful.....................................       10        6       10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

    The returned survey forms skiers during the 1994-5 season indicate 
that the core group of skiers were those who stay at their own (or a 
friend's) second home, condominium or time share unit. There was little 
change in the numbers of this group who skied in comparison with the 
1992-3 season. Those skiers who pay to stay overnight at a resort, 
motel, inn or bed and breakfast were less likely to visit a ski area 
during the 1994-5 season. The day trip skier also appeared to be 
smaller in number than in recent seasons.
    The survey results show that skiers do use information in deciding 
whether or not to go skiing, what ski areas to visit, where to stay and 
dine and where to shop during their ski trip. The winter and spring 
skiers have slightly different demographic and trip characteristics. 
The winter skier is more likely to be a beginner and to be from New 
England. The Canadian skier is more likely to visit during the springs, 
as has been found in other surveys. Skiers who come to New Hampshire 
make very little use of ski shows, bill board advertising and travel 
agents in making ski trip decisions. Snow phones, ski area brochures, 
special ticket promotions, weather reports and television advertising 
are important advertising and information sources for skiers.

Davidson-Peterson Associates, Inc.

Research Memorandum

Profile of Visitors to Maine's Ski Resorts, Winter Ski Season 1994-
95

Presented to: Ski Maine

Presented by: Davidson-Peterson Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 350/18 
Brickyard Court, York, Maine 03909-0350

A. Introduction

    Davidson-Peterson Associates, Inc. was commissioned by Ski Maine to 
conduct a visitor profile and expenditure study for the State's ski 
destinations during the 1994-95 ski season.
    In order to complete this task, Ski Maine acquired the cooperation 
of the Ski Industries Department at the University of Maine at 
Farmington. Between December 17, 1994 and February 26, 1995, a team of 
students visited all 13 Ski Maine members and collected and coded a 
total of 896 completed questionnaires. These questionnaires were then 
processed by Davidson-Peterson Associates, Inc. staff.
    Using confidential industry information, the data were weighted to 
represent the total universe of visitors to Maine's ski areas during 
the past ski season.
    Now let's take a look at who skis in the state of Maine.

B. Who Visits Maine's Ski Areas?

1. Region of Residence

    Maine's skiers live nearby. Most of Maine's skiers are residents of 
the United States (96%). Nearly eight in 10 reside within New England 
(78%), and fully two in five are Mainers (40%). One quarter are 
residents of Massachusetts (25%), and one in 20 resides in New 
Hampshire (5%). Fewer are residents of

[[Page 56050]]

Connecticut (4%) or Rhode Island (3%). Less than one half of one 
percent are from Vermont.
    One Maine skier in 20 is a resident of the Middle Atlantic states 
(6%).
    One in eight reports that he/she is a resident of the United States 
but chose not to specify.
    Of the few international skiers, half are Canadian residents (2%).

2. How Old Are They?

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas are all ages. Not surprisingly, 
Maine's skiers tend to be middle-aged or younger, with an average of 
37.1. More than half are between the ages of 35 and 54 (54%). Nearly 
one quarter are 25-34 (23%). One in six is a young adult 18-24 (16%). 
Very few of Maine's skiers are 55 or older (5%). Of course, respondents 
had to be at least 18 years old to complete the survey.

3. Gender

    More than half of the visitors to Maine's ski areas are male (54%). 
While fewer than two in five are female (39%), one in 12 chose not to 
respond (7%).

4. How Much Do They Make?

    Maine's skiers tend to be affluent. More than two in five report 
their annual pretax household income to be more than $60,000 (41%). 
Fewer report earning less than $30,000 (15%), while one in ten chose 
not to answer (9%).
    The average reported annual pretax household income is $57,600.
    Now let's examine the detailed findings of this study.

C. Detailed Findings

1. Reason For This Ski Trip

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas are there for one main reason--to 
ski. Fully seven responders in 10 report that the one main reason for 
their trip was to visit that particular ski resort (70%). One in 10 
reports taking the trip for rest and relaxation--a change of pace 
(11%).
    Slightly more than one in ten reports the main reason for the trip 
being either to visit several ski areas or to visit friends and 
relatives (6% each). One in 20 is either seeing an area not yet seen or 
attending a special event (3% and 2%, respectively).

2. Number of Nights Spent In Maine

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas spend an average of 4.1 nights away 
from home in Maine during a ski trip. One in five spends 1-2 nights 
away from home in Maine (19%). Slightly fewer spend 3-4 nights away 
from home in Maine (15%). However, fully one in five spend at least 
five nights away from home in Maine (20%).
    Two Maine skiers in five spend no nights away from home during 
their ski trip (41%).
    Residents of Maine staying overnight away from home stay an average 
of 3.6 nights, while non-residents stay an average of 4.2 nights.

3. Type of Overnight Accommodations

    Maine's skiers are equally likely to stay in paid accommodations or 
accommodations with no fee. One half of those visitors who stayed 
overnight in Maine stayed in paid accommodations (49%). Nearly one 
quarter stayed in a rented home/condominium/cabin (23%). One in five 
stayed in a hotel/motel/resort (19%). Many fewer stayed in either a 
historic inn (4%) or a bed and breakfast (3%).
    Therefore, one half of those visitors staying overnight in Maine 
also stayed in accommodations with no fee (51%). One quarter stayed in 
an owned or borrowed home/condominium/cabin (23%). One in seven stayed 
at the home of friends or family (14%). One in seven also chose not to 
specify (15%).

4. Travel Party Size

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas do not travel alone. The average 
travel party size of visitors to Maine's ski resorts is 3.5 persons.
    The average party size for non-residents is 3.8, compared to an 
average of 3.0 for residents.

5. Presence of Children in Party

    Perhaps surprisingly, there do not tend to be children in Maine's 
ski travel parties. Fully three visitors to Maine's ski areas in five 
report that there are no children younger than 13 in their travel party 
(60%).
    Of those who are traveling with children younger than 13, the 
average number of children per travel party is 1.9.

6. Type of Skiing Participated In By Party

    Maine's skiers do just that--downhill ski. Nearly all of the 
respondents reported that someone in their travel party was going to 
participate in downhill skiing (95%). One in seven reported that 
someone would cross-country ski or snowboard (15% and 14%, 
respectively). Very few reported that someone would telemark ski (3%).
    Not surprisingly, due to its increasing popularity with young 
adults, those visitors 18-24 are less likely to participate in downhill 
skiing (89% vs. 97%) and far more likely to participate in snowboarding 
(27% vs. 11%).

7. Reason For Skiing In Maine

    Not surprisingly due to the region of residence of Maine's skiers, 
they are skiing in Maine because of its location and reputation. Nearly 
two visitors in five to Maine's ski resorts say they are skiing in 
Maine because they live either in Maine or nearby (38%). Slightly fewer 
are skiing in Maine because of the reputation of the area and the 
facilities (34%). One in eight is visiting family or friends (12%). One 
in 20 is taking advantage of a special package (6%).
    Interestingly, one half of the non-residents are visiting Maine due 
to the reputation of the facilities (52%), and nearly one in five is 
visiting family and friends (17%).

8. Type of Transportation Used

    Another unsurprising characteristic due to Maine's skiers' region 
of residence, they drive their own vehicles to the ski areas. More than 
nine Maine skiers in 10 used their own vehicles to get to the ski area 
(92%). One in 20 either rented a vehicle or took a bus (3% each). Fewer 
still flew (2%--1% to Boston and 1% to Portland).
    1% reported taking a train--more than likely the Silver Bullet 
Express to Sunday River.

9. Experience on Maine's Roadways

    Overall, visitors to Maine's ski areas rate the State's roadways 
above average. On the Maine Turnpike, more than three visitors in five 
rated the road conditions either very good or good (65%), and another 
one in 10 rated them average (11%). Traffic was reported to be very 
good or good by fully three in five visitors (60%). Slightly fewer 
ranked signage and traffic at toll booths the same (58% and 57%, 
respectively).
    Aside from the Turnpike, traffic on the other roadways within the 
State was rated very good or good by more than three visitors in five 
(63%). Fully three in five also rated the road conditions and signage 
the same (60% each).
    Maine residents tended to give the State's roadways a lower grade 
than non-residents.

10. Most Important Factor in Timing of Trip Home

    When deciding what time to head home, the majority of Maine's 
skiers cite the distance they have to travel as the most important 
factor. More than three visitors to Maine's ski areas in five reported 
that the single most important factor used in determining the time they 
head home is the distance that they have to travel (64%). Another one 
in six report the reason to be fatigue (16%). One in 10 say he/she 
decides when to leave depending upon the weather

[[Page 56051]]

(11%). One in 20 either make this decision depending on traffic or did 
not respond (5% each).

11. How Downhill Ski Trips Are Planned

    Maine's skiers like to ski whenever they have the opportunity to do 
so. One half of the Maine skiers plan their ski trips whenever time and 
finances allow them to do so (50%). One third say they try to plan a 
ski vacation with at least one overnight each ski season (36%). Three 
in 10 report taking day ski trips several times each ski season (28%). 
One in 10 says that they do not plan their downhill ski trips (9%).
    Non-residents are more than twice as likely as residents are to 
plan a ski vacation with at least one overnight each ski season (46% 
vs. 21%).

12. Pattern of Overnight Ski Vacations

    Not surprising due to the response found in the previous section, 
visitors' trips to Maine's ski areas tend not to follow a pattern. More 
than one third of the visitors to Maine's ski areas report that their 
overnight ski vacations do not follow a pattern (35%). One visitor in 
five says he/she plans overnight trips for President's Week--February 
18 through February 26 during 1995--each year (22%). One in six says 
he/she takes a ski vacation between January 2 and February 17 (16%). 
Slightly fewer take a ski vacation between February 27 and the end of 
the ski season (12%) or during Christmas Week--December 25 through 
January 1 (11%). Very few Maine skiers take a ski vacation prior to 
Christmas each year (7%).
    One in five visitors chose not to respond to this question (19%).

13. Activities Participated in During Ski Trip

    Besides skiing, visitors to Maine's ski areas are there to relax. 
Nearly three visitors in five say they are going to participate in 
relaxing ``quiet time'' during their trip (58%). Two in five say they 
are going to enjoy fine dining (38%). One quarter report seeking 
nightclub entertainment (26%) or fitness activities (23%). One in six 
reports sightseeing (16%). Very few say they will go snowmobiling (7%), 
snowshoeing (3%), skating or cross-country skiing (2% each), or 
shopping (1%).
    Non-residents are far more likely to participate in relaxing 
``quiet time'' (64% vs. 47%), as well as sightseeing (18% vs. 12%).

14. Bring Lunch or Purchase Lunch

    The cost of food at Maine's ski areas causes visitors to bring 
their own lunches with them to the mountain. Slightly more than half of 
Maine skiers bring their lunches with them (52%). One third bring their 
lunches from home (34%). Many fewer bring their lunches from non-paid 
overnight accommodations or a retail establishment (6% each), or from 
paid overnight accommodations (4%).
    Of course, residents are more likely to bring their lunches with 
them (58% vs. 48%).
    Of those who brought their lunches with them, nearly two-thirds 
report doing so because the price of food at the ski areas is too high 
(64%). Other reasons given were the quality of food available at the 
ski areas (17%), the selection/variety available (14%), and the fact 
that they did not want to wait in line (11%). Only slightly more than 
two in five purchase lunch at the ski area (44%).

15. Where Do Maine's Skiers Ski?

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas also visit ski destinations in other 
states. Nearly three quarters of those who skied in Maine during this 
past ski season also skied in Maine during the previous ski season--
1993-1994 (72%). More than two in five skied at Sunday River (43%), 
while slightly fewer skied at Sugarloaf (37%).
    Three visitors in 10 visited a New Hampshire ski area during 1993-
'94 (29%). One in five skied in Vermont (21%).
    Of course during this past ski season--1994-1995--all of those 
visitors responding skied in Maine (100%). Two-thirds skied at Sunday 
River at least once during the past ski season (64%), while one half 
skied at Sugarload (49%). One in five visited Shawnee Peak (20%).
    Three Maine skiers in 10 also skied at least once at a New 
Hampshire area this past season (28%). Slightly fewer visited a Vermont 
ski area (22%).

16. Average Number of Days Skied

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas ski often. Maine's skiers skied an 
average of 16.6 times in Maine during the past ski season--up slightly 
from an average of 16.3 in 1993-'94.
    They skied an average of 6.7 times in New Hampshire (vs. 6.0 the 
previous season), and 4.9 times in Vermont (down slightly from 5.2 the 
previous season). They also skied 8.4 times at other destinations (down 
from 9.3 the previous season).

D. How Much Do They Spend?

1. Hotel/Motel/Resort/Bed & Breakfast/Historic Inn

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas who stay overnight in a hotel, motel, 
resort, bed & breakfast or historic inn have the highest daily 
expenditures. These visitors spend an average of $111.82 per person per 
day.
    One third is spent on lodging (35%, or $39.13). Slightly less is 
spent on sports fees such as lift tickets and equipment rental (27%, or 
$30.75). One fifth of the daily expenditure is for food (19%, or 
$20.84). Less than one tenth is spent on shopping (7%, or $7.89). Other 
expenditures total $13.21.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M

[[Page 56052]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.006



2. Rented Condominium/Cabin

    Slightly less is spent by Maine skiers who rent a condominium or 
cabin during their stay in the state. These visitors spend $110.57 per 
person per day.
    More than two-fifths of this expenditure is for lodging (42%, or 
$46.70). Nearly one third is spent on sports fees (30%, or $33.37). One 
eighth is spent on food (14%, or $15.19). Very little is spent on 
shopping (6%, or $6.93). Other expenditures total $8.38.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.007



[[Page 56053]]



3. Daytrippers

    Not surprisingly, visitors to Maine's ski areas who do not spend 
any nights away from home spend far less than those who do. These 
visitors spend an average of $56.44 per person per day.
    Two thirds of their expenditures are for sports fees (67%, or 
$38.08). They spend one sixth on food (15%, or $8.64). They also spend 
very little on shopping (6%, or $3.22). Other expenditures total $6.52.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.008

4. Visiting Friends and Relatives

    Those visitors who are staying at the home of friends or relatives 
spend nearly the equivalent of daytrippers. These visitors spend an 
average of $56.15 per person per day.
    More than two fifths of their expenditures are for sports fees such 
as lift tickets and rental equipment (43%, or $24.05). One quarter is 
for food (24%, or $13.34). They spend more on shopping than others do 
(15%, or $8.60). Other expenditures total $10.15.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.009



[[Page 56054]]



5. Condominium/Cabin Owned or Borrowed

    Visitors to Maine's ski areas who stay overnight in a condominium 
or cabin that they either own or borrowed have spent the least during 
their trip. Those visitors on average spend $46.63 per person per day.
    Two thirds of this expenditure is for sports fees (41%, or $18.99). 
Much like those visitors staying with friends or relatives, those 
staying in an owned or borrowed condo/cabin spend one quarter of their 
expenditures on food (26%, or $12.04). One eighth is spent on shopping 
(13%, or $6.11). Other expenditures total $9.49.

BILLING CODE 4410-01-M

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30OC96.010


                       1. Reason For This Ski Trip                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Visiting this ski resort................        70         72         68
Rest and relaxation--a change of pace...        11         16          7
Visiting several ski resorts............         6          2          9
Visiting friends and relatives..........         6          3          9
Seeing an area I have not seen..........         3          1          4
Attending a special event...............         2          1          2
Other...................................         2          4          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                2. Total Number of Nights Spent in Maine                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent    percent    percent
None....................................         9          2         13
One.....................................         5          6          4
Two.....................................        14          6         20
Three...................................         9          2         14
Four....................................         6          2          8
Five or more............................        20          7         28
Resident................................        32         73  .........
Second home.............................         2  .........          7
No answer...............................         4          2          5
Mean....................................       4.1        3.6        4.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   


[[Page 56055]]


                   3. Type of Overnight Accommodations                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base: those who stayed overnight........     (632)      (216)      (409)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Paid Accommodations.....................        49         23         62
  Hotel/motel/resort....................        19          9         24
  Bed and breakfast.....................         3          1          4
  Historic inn..........................         4          1          5
  Rented home/condominium/cabin.........        23         11         29
Accommodations/No Fee...................        51         77         38
  Owned or borrowed home/condominium/                                   
   cabin................................        23         30         19
  Home of family or friends.............        14         12         15
  No answer.............................        15         36          4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   


                                              4. Travel Party Size                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Non-  
                                                                                   Total     Resident   Resident
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base...........................................................................      (888)      (357)      (523)
                                                                                  percent    percent    percent 
One............................................................................       10         12          8  
Two............................................................................       29         35         25  
Three..........................................................................       18         21         16  
Four-five......................................................................       28         23         32  
Six-eight......................................................................       12          8         15  
Nine or more...................................................................        3        (*)          4  
Mean...........................................................................        3.5        3.0        3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.                                           
*Less than 0.5%.                                                                                                


                  5. Presence of Children in the Party                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base: those who answered................     (798)      (313)      (479)
                                           percent    percent   percent 
None....................................        60         59         60
One.....................................        16         18         16
Two.....................................        16         14         17
Three...................................         5          6          3
Four or more............................         3          2          3
Mean (excluding none)...................       1.9        1.9        1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------


               6. Type of Skiing Participated In by Party               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Downhill ski............................        95         94         96
Cross-country ski.......................        15         20         11
Snowboard...............................        14         14         14
Telemark ski............................         3          5          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses allowed.                                       


                      7. Reason For Skiing in Maine                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                               Total  Resident  resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base........................................   (888)    (357)      523) 
                                                                        
Nearby/live in Maine (percent)..............      38       81         8 
Reputation of area/facilities (percent).....      34        8        52 
Visit family/friends (percent)..............      12        4        17 

[[Page 56056]]

                                                                        
Special package offered (percent)...........       6        5         8 
Recommendation (percent)....................       3        1         5 
Location of vacation home/condo (percent)...       3        1         4 
No answer (percent).........................       3      (*)         5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   
* Less than 0.5%.                                                       


                     8. Type of Transportation Used                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Own vehicle.............................        92         94         90
Rented vehicle..........................         3          1          4
Bus.....................................         3          3          3
Fly.....................................         2          1          3
  Into Portland.........................         1        (*)          2
  Into Boston...........................         1        (*)          1
Train...................................         1          2          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   
* Less than 0.5%.                                                       


                     9. Experience on Maine Roadways                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
             Maine Turnpike                                             
                                                                        
Road Conditions:                                                        
    Good*...............................        65         54         72
    Average.............................        11         13         10
Traffic:                                                                
    Good*...............................        60         48         69
    Average.............................        13         16         10
Signage:                                                                
    Good*...............................        58         49         64
    Average.............................        15         17         13
Traffic at Toll Booths:                                                 
    Good*...............................        57         47         64
    Average.............................        12         12         12
         Maine's Other Roadways                                         
                                                                        
Road Conditions:                                                        
    Good*...............................        60         53         64
    Average.............................        26         26         26
Traffic:                                                                
    Good*...............................        63         54         69
    Average.............................        25         30         21
Signage:                                                                
    Good*...............................        60         55         63
    Average.............................        26         32        23 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Those responding to ``very good'' or ``good'' on a five-choice scale. 


            10. Most Important Factor in Timing of Trip Home            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base:...................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Distance to travel......................        64         51         73
Fatigue.................................        16         25          9
Weather.................................        11         13         10
Traffic.................................         5          4          5

[[Page 56057]]

                                                                        
Other...................................       (*)  .........        (*)
No answer...............................         5          7          3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   
* Less than 0.5%.                                                       


                 11.--How Downhill Ski Trips Are Planned                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Whenever time and finances allow........        50         55         46
I try to plan a ski vacation each ski                                   
 season.................................        36         21         46
I plan day trips several times each ski                                 
 season.................................        28         32         25
I do not plan my downhill ski trips.....         9         11          8
No answer...............................         4          6          2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible.                                      


                   12. Pattern of Overnight Ski Trips                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Start of season-December 24.............         7          8          6
December 25-January 1...................        11          8         13
January 2-February 17...................        16         10         20
February 18-February 26.................        22         12         29
February 27-end of season...............        12         11         12
Every weekend...........................       (*)  .........          1
My overnight ski trips do not follow a                                  
 pattern................................        35         39         33
No answer...............................        19         28         13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible.                                      
* Less than 0.5%.                                                       


               13.--Activities Participated In During Trip              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent    percent    percent
Relaxing/``quiet time''.................        58         47         64
Fine dining.............................        38         34         41
Nightclub entertainment.................        26         30         23
Fitness activities......................        23         26         22
Sightseeing.............................        16         12         18
Snowmobiling............................         7         10          5
Snowshoeing.............................         3          4          2
Skating.................................         2          1          3
Cross-country skiing....................         2          2          1
Shopping................................         1          1          1
Other...................................         1          1          1
No answer...............................        16         24         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible.                                      


                           14.--Type of Lunch                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Purchase lunch at ski area..............        44         37         48
Brought a lunch--.......................        52         58         48
  From home.............................        34         43         28

[[Page 56058]]

                                                                        
  From paid overnight accommodations....         4          1          6
  From non-paid overnight accommodations         6          3          8
  From retail establishment.............         6          9          5
  Unspecified...........................         1          2          1
No answer...............................         5          5          4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.   


                      15. Reason For Bringing Lunch                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base: those who brought lunch...........     (461)      (237)      (225)
                                           percent    percent    percent
Price...................................        64         60         68
Quality of food.........................        17         16         18
Selection/variety.......................        14         14         12
Didn't want to wait in line.............        11         12         10
No answer...............................        28         31         26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible.                                      


             16. Where Maine's Skiers Did Ski During 1993-94            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Maine...................................        72         88         61
  Sunday River..........................        43         48         40
  Sugarloaf.............................        37         55         25
  Shawnee Peak..........................        15         24          9
  Mt. Abrams............................        15         27          6
  Saddleback............................        11         20          4
  Lost Valley...........................         8         14          3
  Other Maine areas.....................        15         29          5
New Hampshire...........................        29         18         36
  Vermont...............................        21         12         27
  Other New England.....................         6          1         10
  Other U.S. destinations...............        10          4         14
                                                                        
  Canada destinations...................         1        (*)          2
  Other international destinations......         1          1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible. Columns of figures may not add to    
  totals shown due to rounding.                                         
* Less than 0.5%                                                        


            17. Where Maine's Skiers Did Ski During 1994-1995           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base....................................     (888)      (357)      (523)
                                           percent   percent    percent 
Maine...................................       100        100        100
    Sunday River........................        64         55         71
    Sugarloaf...........................        49         63         40
    Shawnee Peak........................        20         27         15
    Mt. Abrams..........................        14         25          6
    Saddleback..........................        13         24          5
    Lost Valley.........................         8         16          3
    Camden Snowbowl.....................         6         10          2
    Other Maine areas...................        14         26          5
New Hampshire...........................        28         16         36
Vermont.................................        22         15         27
Other New England.......................         7          1         12
Other U.S. destinations.................        10          5         13
Canada destinations.....................         3          2          4

[[Page 56059]]

                                                                        
Other international destinations........         1          1        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Multiple responses possible.                                      
Columns of figures may not add to totals shown due to rounding.         
* Less than 0.5%                                                        


             18. Average Number of Days Skied During 1993-1994          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base:*..................................  ........  .........  .........
Maine...................................      16.3       21.5       11.2
  Sunday River..........................       9.8       11.6        8.5
  Sugarloaf.............................       9.1       10.7        6.9
  Shawnee Peak..........................       6.1        5.4        7.4
  Saddleback............................       5.5        6.2        3.4
New Hampshire...........................       6.0        4.9        6.4
Vermont.................................       5.2        4.7        4.9
Other...................................       9.3       15.8        8.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bases vary.                                                           


            19. Average Number of Days Skied During 1994-1995           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-  
                                            Total    Resident   Resident
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base:*..................................         #          #          #
Maine...................................      16.6       25.5       10.6
  Sugarloaf.............................      12.1       15.3        8.7
  Sunday River..........................       9.0       13.8        6.5
  Shawnee Park..........................       6.6        6.0        7.4
  Saddleback............................       5.9        6.4        4.6
New Hampshire...........................       6.7        3.4        7.6
Vermont.................................       4.9        4.5        5.1
Other...................................       8.4        6.7        8.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bases vary.                                                           


                        20.--Region of Residence                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base.........................................................      (888)
                                                                 percent
United States................................................         96
  New England................................................         78
    Maine....................................................         40
    Massachusetts............................................         25
    New Hampshire............................................          5
    Connecticut..............................................          4
    Rhode Island.............................................          3
    Vermont..................................................          *
  Middle Atlantic............................................          6
  Other U.S./unspecified.....................................         13
Canada.......................................................          2
  Other international........................................          1
  No answer..................................................          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        21.--Demographic Profile                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total  
                                                                percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base.........................................................      (888)
Age:                                                                    
  18-24......................................................         16
  25-34......................................................         23
  35-44......................................................         36
  45-54......................................................         18

[[Page 56060]]

                                                                        
  55-64......................................................          3
  65 and older...............................................          2
  No answer..................................................          2
      Mean...................................................       37.1
Gender:                                                                 
  Male.......................................................         54
  Female.....................................................         39
  No answer..................................................          7
Annual Household Income:                                                
  Less than $30,000..........................................         15
  $30,000-$44,999............................................         17
  $45,000-$60,000............................................         17
  More than $60,000..........................................         41
  No answer..................................................          9
      Mean...................................................    $57,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendixes A-E of the Mt. Washington Valley Task Force Report could 
not be reprinted in the Federal Register, however, they may be 
inspected in Suite 25, U.S. Department of Justice, Legal Procedures 
Unit, 325 7th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. at (202) 514-2481 and at the 
Office of the Clerk of the United States Court for the District of 
Columbia.

[FR Doc. 96-26995 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-C