Why I prefer Aussie snowfields over NZ
Trish doesn't understand why I'd rather ski in Australia. Well... I'd rather ski in France, but that's currently out of the question. But there's this notion that skiing in NZ is somehow better than skiing in Australia. Personally I think it's a load of cobblers. Each has its own merits and for my money Australia is preferable.
There are really two reasons I like skiing in Australia.
The first reason is entirely selfish, and hinges on the fact that I'm good at skiing.
From my point of view the ideal skifield is all high-intermediate and advanced runs. I warm up on the intermediate runs, and they're good for working on technique. Advanced runs are where I cut loose and have some fun. Most importantly, when a field is beginner unfriendly, it's less crowded and the people there are more able. You don't come belting around a blind corner at 40kph to find someone wobbling along at 10kph right in the middle of a narrow path. And the lifts don't keep stopping because people don't fall off them.
Sure I was a beginner once. It was a long time ago and I promise not to do it again.
Mt Hotham in Australia is exactly what I like: ski-in-ski-out, mostly high-end intermediate and advanced runs, and nestled in a U-shaped valley lined with snowgum. Snowgum, unlike the conifers you get in NZ, catch and keep powder. They also break the wind, making surface conditions much more agreeable.
The second reason is that the snow's better in Australia.
This statement will no doubt cause raised eyebrows and indignant expostulations of rejection, but it's true. A misperception people seem to cherish is that NZ skiing is better because NZ mountains are taller. Some of them might be, but the ones with chairlifts aren't and that's what matters if you want to ski. Treble Cone in NZ is 2048m high. Mt Kosciuszko by contrast is 2228m high. The Eagle's Nest, the highest lifted point in Australia, is at 1950m. The highest lifted point in NZ is at Mt Dobson, at 2030m. The peak of Mt Dobson is 2110m.
Mt Cook may well be nearly a mile taller than Kosciuszko with permanent snow, but it isn't a ski area. Why not? I really don't know.
What I do know is that NZ mountains are young spires of rock, steep and angular. The snow blows right off them in dramatic plumes that make great photos. Australian mountains are ancient even by geological standards. They have soil and trees most of the way up. We don't get as much snow falling in Australia but the trees catch it and keep it. They also shade it for part of the day, inhibiting snowmelt. The fact that the mountains are shallower and covered with soil means that while NZ fields need a metre of snow to cover the boulders, Australian fields need only half that depth to open the off-piste areas.
To be fair you can stay on-field at Cardrona (NZ). The complex is two-story and the upper floor is mostly accommodation. And in Australia I gather that a lot of people do stay at Jindabyne. But I can't imagine why anyone would want to muck about commuting. If you stay on field it means you don't have to get up till eight, instead of trying to hustle five people and their kit to the bus stop by 7-30. Or into the car by seven (those carparks are like a shopping centre at Christmas). It's different for me and Trish because we're also visiting Neil and Esme.
It occurs to me just now that predominantly on-snow accommodation might be why skiing costs more in Australia. If that's the crux of it then I guess you get what you pay for.