Ski Instructor Shortages

[SkiSchoolPros]

Yes, you have to read the quarterly report to get the real numbers and how much they make from the ski school.

Surprisingly, about 7 years ago at our seasonal Kickoff event Ski School Management presented a cost breakdown that showed NET PROFIT of 54.6% of gross school revenue.
Considering that the typical S & P 500 company is happy with 10% net profit, this raises a number of issues:
1. Would competition, like that found in Europe, increase instructor pay, the number of instructors and the number of lessons while reducing lesson costs and normalizing profit margins?

2. Would a greater number of lessons at a lower price increase mountain safety, make skiing more accessible and increase total revenue to the USFS?

3. Why hasn't the USFS utilized its regulatory powers agreed to in the Ski Area Term Special Use Permits to "Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of
services provided the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to
furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may be regulated by the
Forest Service: Provided, that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different than those charged by
comparable or competing enterprises." Alternatively, if the USFS doesn't have the resources to properly regulate the monopolies they have created, why haven't they simply issued additional "non-exclusive" permits for competing ski schools or even exercised their power to "
Revocation and Suspension. The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole or part...At the discretion of the authorized officer for specific and compelling reasons in the public interest."

 

[mister moose]

Ski areas are not a monopoly. The ones on forest service land compete with those on private land. Yes, I know many are on public lands, but they do still compete with each other.

I'd be careful about using numbers on ski school profit such as that pie chart. There are many ways to allocate expenses and overhead, and what is really going to matter is the entire company's net profit. That isn't going to get any regulator's attention.

Let's look at another product. The fountain soda the resort charges $3 or $4 for costs about 15 cents for the cup and 20 cents for the syrup. The water is right out of the tap and a filter. Figure the profit margin on that - are you going to start a campaign on unfair soda prices? (Take a look at coffee, hot chocolate and french fries while you're at it)

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

Ski areas are not a monopoly. The ones on forest service land compete with those on private land. Yes, I know many are on public lands, but they do still compete with each other.

I'd be careful about using numbers on ski school profit such as that pie chart. There are many ways to allocate expenses and overhead, and what is really going to matter is the entire company's net profit. That isn't going to get any regulator's attention.

Let's look at another product. The fountain soda the resort charges $3 or $4 for costs about 15 cents for the cup and 20 cents for the syrup. The water is right out of the tap and a filter. Figure the profit margin on that - are you going to start a campaign on unfair soda prices? (Take a look at coffee, hot chocolate and french fries while you're at it)

I believe some monopolies should be examined on a local rather than national or international level.

If one entity operated all the gas stations in the Vail Valley and charged $13/gallon, I'd say they had a monopoly even if in theory someone in Edwards could drive to Silverthorne or Glenwood to fill up their tank at a lower price.

In terms of soda and on mountain food prices, its worth noting that Europe continues to have (and Breckenridge once had) on mountain competition. Prices were always less at the independent Peak 9 restaurants until Vail took it over. https://www.summitdaily.com/news/the-end-of-an-era-at-breckenridge/

Breckenridge’s Peak 9 Restaurant symbolizes a fading part of ski history

Editor’s note: This is the first part of a three-part series about the history of the Peak 9 Restaurant. On Easter Sunday, April 20, Peak 9 at Breckenridge

www.summitdaily.com

In my mind, competition should be the default whenever possible as competitive markets tend to regulate themselves, at least in terms of price/quality.

Yes, ski school is just one part of VR's business, but there are independently run schools that pay instructors more and charge consumers less...from an economic efficiency standpoint, that seems to be a better model.

 

[Jwrags]

Ignoring the cost of the lesson to the consumer, what is an appropriate wage for a newbie ski instructor at a big resort?

 

[GB_Ski]

Let's look at another product. The fountain soda the resort charges $3 or $4 for costs about 15 cents for the cup and 20 cents for the syrup. The water is right out of the tap and a filter. Figure the profit margin on that - are you going to start a campaign on unfair soda prices? (Take a look at coffee, hot chocolate and french fries while you're at it)

I can always bring my own soda, can I book a private instructor from outside of the ski school?

 

[mister moose]

I can always bring my own soda, can I book a private instructor from outside of the ski school?

OK, so the analogy breaks down for soda. Try bringing your own frozen french fries and see if they'll throw them in the fryer for you. Or your own beer to the bar.

What hasn't been recognized here is that the operator leases the land from the Feds or State. It is an exclusive lease. The lease does not allow brand X to make their own snow, groom their own trails, build their own lifts, sell their own food, or run their own ski school. The Feds or State grants the operator the exclusive right to produce revenue on the property. That makes it a business, not a monopoly. If a brand X instructor expects to come in and teach, is he/she going to also pay for part of the snowmaking cost, lift maintenance cost, parking lot plowing, and on and on? Those are all costs the operator bears in providing the menu of services.

Everyone knows about those Interstate rest areas with restaurants. Those restaurants have leases with the State. (Usually obtained through a bidding process) Try setting up a food truck in the parking lot and see how long it lasts.

I believe some monopolies should be examined on a local rather than national or international level.

Good luck with that.

 

[GB_Ski]

OK, so the analogy breaks down for soda. Try bringing your own frozen french fries and see if they'll throw them in the fryer for you. Or your own beer to the bar.

What hasn't been recognized here is that the operator leases the land from the Feds or State. It is an exclusive lease. The lease does not allow brand X to make their own snow, groom their own trails, build their own lifts, sell their own food, or run their own ski school. The Feds or State grants the operator the exclusive right to produce revenue on the property. That makes it a business, not a monopoly. If a brand X instructor expects to come in and teach, is he/she going to also pay for part of the snowmaking cost, lift maintenance cost, parking lot plowing, and on and on? Those are all costs the operator bears in providing the menu of services.

Good luck with that.

Fryer is in restricted area and has health and safety requirement. But I'll pay a buck or two to nuke my lunch if they offer microwaves, Okemo used to do that. And many restaurants charge a reasonable corking fee for BYO wine. So if I bring my own instructor, I think the instructor has to pay for a lift ticket which covers the operating cost for a person.

Call it monopoly or whatever you want, the only reason ski resorts don't allow outside instructors is because they can. It's well within their rights in their leases on public land or if they own the land. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way. Given the current ski instructors shortage, if I bring my own ski instructor, it doesn't even compete against the resort's bottom line. In fact, I'm adding another lift ticket sale to it.

I have no hope that ski resorts will change its way since most corporations are just purely money grab at the moment and our law makers are incentivized to look the other way.

 

[François Pugh]

If a brand X instructor expects to come in and teach, is he/she going to also pay for part of the snowmaking cost, lift maintenance cost, parking lot plowing, and on and on? Those are all costs the operator bears in providing

Yes, to the tune of about 120 bucks a day. Plus looking after his own insurance, liability, food, travel, equipment and training.
Resorts won't do it, because they would then lose their cash cow through competition. It IS that simple.
Your arguments are not fooling anyone.

 

[mister moose]

I have no hope that ski resorts will change its way since most corporations are just purely money grab at the moment and our law makers are incentivized to look the other way.

Yes. Most, in fact essentially all for-profit businesses are a money grab. That's what businesses are. There is no need to look the other way. you illustrated that by recognizing that most restaurants don't offer bring your own wine, bring your own steak, or bring your own waiter.

Yes, to the tune of about 120 bucks a day. Plus looking after his own insurance, liability, food, travel, equipment and training.
Resorts won't do it, because they would then lose their cash cow through competition. It IS that simple.
Your arguments are not fooling anyone.

You can choose to see things as they are or not. Every business controls what happens on their property, not just ski resorts. You simply can't identify one aspect of a business, declare it more profitable that some other aspect, and use that as justification to come on the premises and open up your own business.

Are you saying I should be able to pull up in a van and offer ski rentals in the parking lot? How about I set up a grill and sell burgers and sodas trailside? Or how about I sell hand warmers, candy bars, chap stick, hats and gloves right outside the lodge? I bought a lift ticket after all.

 

[mister moose]

Those are all costs the operator bears in providing

Yes, to the tune of about 120 bucks a day.

Your assumption here is that the lift ticket covers all those expenses plus the profit needed to re-invest and compensate shareholders, and that the lift ticket covers losses in lean years like this one. Profitability and return on investment is determined by the entire product mix across the resort, over an average of many years, both holidays and midweek, not just one department at one point in time.

 

[Uncle-A]

Just a quick question, what would happen if a ski instructor showed up at a mountain that they didn't work with 4 or more people and started giving them lessons? Does that sound like theft of services or just helping your friends learn?

 

[mike_m]

So long as no cash changes hands, all is well.

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

Your assumption here is that the lift ticket covers all those expenses plus the profit needed to re-invest and compensate shareholders, and that the lift ticket covers losses in lean years like this one. Profitability and return on investment is determined by the entire product mix across the resort, over an average of many years, both holidays and midweek, not just one department at one point in time.

That's how it works in Europe. You have one company that sells lift tickets and operates the lifts while multiple entities run ski schools and restaurants. @mister moose Do you really think lesson takers should subsidize the rest of the resort? Sounds like a recipe for fewer lessons and more safety issues.

What hasn't been recognized here is that the operator leases the land from the Feds or State. It is an exclusive lease. The lease does not allow brand X to make their own snow, groom their own trails, build their own lifts, sell their own food, or run their own ski school. The Feds or State grants the operator the exclusive right to produce revenue on the property.

WRONG! Ski Area Term Special Use Permits NEVER say the permit holder has exclusive use. In fact, they say almost the exact opposite-
"Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part
of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby
authorized."
Competition in and of itself is not material interference. The USFS issues multiple permits to rafting companies on the same stretch of river, and to companies doing snow mobile turns on the same land...they could do the same with ski instruction.

Permits also say
"Revocation for Reasons in the Public Interest. If, during the term of this permit or any extension thereof, the Secretary of
Agriculture or any official of the Forest Service with delegated authority determines in planning for the uses of the National
Forest System that the public interest requires revocation of this permit, this permit shall be revoked after one hundred-eighty
(180) day's written notice to the holder."


Today Biden said "Capitalism without Competition isn't Capitalism, it's EXPLOITATION!"

I agree!

 

[SkiSchoolPros]

Vai Resort's 10-K says
"The SUPs may be revised or amended to accommodate changes initiated by us or by the Forest Service to change the permit
area or permitted uses. The Forest Service may amend a SUP if it determines that such amendment is in the public interest.
While the Forest Service is required to seek the permit holder’s consent to any amendment, an amendment can be finalized over
a permit holder’s objection."

Under Risk factors they say
"We rely on various government permits and landlord approvals at our U.S. resorts.
Our U.S. Resort operations require permits and approvals from certain federal, state and local authorities, including the Forest
Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the States of Vermont and New Hampshire and the NPS. Virtually all of our ski trails
and related activities, including our summer activities, at Vail Mountain, Breckenridge, Keystone, Crested Butte, Stevens Pass,
Heavenly, Kirkwood, Mount Snow, Wildcat, a majority of Beaver Creek and portions of Attitash are located on National Forest
land. The Forest Service has granted us permits to use these lands, but maintains the right to review and approve many
operational matters, as well as the location, design and construction of improvements in these areas. The expiration dates for
our permits are set forth in the Business section of this Form 10-K under the heading “Contracts with Governmental Authorities
for Resort Operations”.
The Forest Service can terminate or amend these permits if, in its opinion, such termination is required in the public interest. A
termination or amendment of any of our permits could have a materially adverse effect on our business and operations. In order
to undertake improvements and new development, we must apply for permits and other approvals. These efforts, if
unsuccessful, could impact our expansion efforts. Furthermore, Congress may materially increase the fees we pay to the Forest
Service for use of these National Forest lands."

 

[GB_Ski]

Yes. Most, in fact essentially all for-profit businesses are a money grab. That's what businesses are. There is no need to look the other way. you illustrated that by recognizing that most restaurants don't offer bring your own wine, bring your own steak, or bring your own waiter.

You can choose to see things as they are or not. Every business controls what happens on their property, not just ski resorts. You simply can't identify one aspect of a business, declare it more profitable that some other aspect, and use that as justification to come on the premises and open up your own business.

Are you saying I should be able to pull up in a van and offer ski rentals in the parking lot? How about I set up a grill and sell burgers and sodas trailside? Or how about I sell hand warmers, candy bars, chap stick, hats and gloves right outside the lodge? I bought a lift ticket after all.

Again, you are confusing with your argument. A waiter and cook are essential to the restaurants, along with the space, tables, etc.. A sommelier is not. I can bring my wine or even my own sommelier if I want as long as my sommelier pays for their food, etc and doesn't interfere with the restaurant's sommelier. I'm not gonna bring my own knifes, etc.. Same thing applies to ski resort. I can bring my own food, my own skis, but not my own ski patrol or snow-maker.

Ski rental shops exist off the mountain, I can rent the skis and ski the mountain. I can buy burgers right off the mountain and eat it in the lodge. I can buy and bring my own hand warmers, candy bars and use them on the mountain. Why can't I bring my own instructor as long as they have a lift ticket and behave like any normal skiers? Why force me to get instructor from on resort? Why don't they force me to rent skis on the mountain, and no outside food allowed?

 

[mister moose]

That's how it works in Europe. You have one company that sells lift tickets and operates the lifts while multiple entities run ski schools and restaurants. @mister moose Do you really think lesson takers should subsidize the rest of the resort? Sounds like a recipe for fewer lessons and more safety issues.

This isn't Europe. Lessons do not subsidize the resort anymore than hamburgers subsidize the resort. They are different departmental income streams.

WRONG! Ski Area Term Special Use Permits NEVER say the permit holder has exclusive use. In fact, they say almost the exact opposite-
"Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part
of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby
authorized."

Please list all the other permit holders at Vail, Breckenridge, Mount Snow or Killington that operate competitive activities.

Competition in and of itself is not material interference.

According to whom? Your proposal materially reduces the income to the resort for all clients that shift to your alternate ski school.

The USFS issues multiple permits to rafting companies on the same stretch of river,

The rafting operator does not create the resource whereas the ski operator has to cut the trails, install the lifts, build lodges, and make snow.

Today Biden said "Capitalism without Competition isn't Capitalism, it's EXPLOITATION!"

I agree!

Competition is not operating on someone else's premises. Competition is operating on your own premises. But since you feel so strongly you are correct, it should be easy to make an application to the Forest Service and get a permit to open your alternative Ski School on Vail's leased land.

 

[mister moose]

Again, you are confusing with your argument. A waiter and cook are essential to the restaurants, along with the space, tables, etc.. A sommelier is not. I can bring my wine or even my own sommelier if I want as long as my sommelier pays for their food, etc and doesn't interfere with the restaurant's sommelier. I'm not gonna bring my own knifes, etc.. Same thing applies to ski resort. I can bring my own food, my own skis, but not my own ski patrol or snow-maker.

Ski rental shops exist off the mountain, I can rent the skis and ski the mountain. I can buy burgers right off the mountain and eat it in the lodge. I can buy and bring my own hand warmers, candy bars and use them on the mountain. Why can't I bring my own instructor as long as they have a lift ticket and behave like any normal skiers? Why force me to get instructor from on resort? Why don't they force me to rent skis on the mountain, and no outside food allowed?

I am not confusing my argument. Very few restaurants that serve their own wine allow you to bring your own. I'm aware some do, in fact the Moose & Pepper Bistro in Niagra Falls, Ontario allows you to bring your own wine. That is a choice (assuming the local liquor laws allow it) made by each restaurant. At those restaurants that do not allow you to bring your own wine, you do not have that option. It is their decision. As for ski rentals, or to go food, off mountain shops do not conduct their revenue producing activity on the mountain. They are off mountain.

 

[pchewn]

The ski area could allow you to bring your own instructor and charge you a "corking fee" similar to restaurants where you bring your own wine.

WIN/WIN/WIN Ski area gets a fee, student gets a choice of instructors, instructors can set their own prices....

 

[Henry]

Let's get real. Ski areas pay lower level instructors minimum wage plus a ski pass. Higher level instructors get a few dollars more. The really good, or perceived to be good, instructors get good money from tips from returning customers. There is no instructor shortage. There is an instructor compensation shortage. If ski resorts want more instructors, more good instructors, they need to pay more and train better. It really is that simple. An instructor that books private clients still gets the basic pay, sometimes with a tip, sometimes with added pay, while the resort gets the high charge to the client. And, as always, housing is part of the equation. The disparity between what the instructor earns and what the client pays is always mammoth.

 

[François Pugh]

Why can't I bring my own instructor as long as they have a lift ticket and behave like any normal skiers? Why force me to get instructor from on resort? Why don't they force me to rent skis on the mountain, and no outside food allowed?

Because the resort CAN stop you from doing that to protect their profits obtained from over-priced lessons by under-payed staff. So the resorts can make more money; resorts are in busines to make money. Because they can't; they would if they could. Because too many skiers wouldn't stand for it.