Ski School Monopolies

[Jacob]

One of the big differences between US resorts and ski areas in the Alps is the monopolisation of ski instruction in the US. This leads to much higher prices for consumers and lower wages for instructors, which leads to people taking fewer lessons. That, in turn, makes it harder for people to progress in the sport and, at the same time, causes safety issues.

So, is it time for states to break up the monopolies?

 

[LiquidFeet]

Yesterday I learned something new about the worrisome stat in the US about beginners returning to skiing. For a few years it's been about 83% don't return after day one, while about 17% do.

That 17% has now been broken down. 8% who take a lesson on day one return. 9% who don't take a lesson return. Sobering.

 

[GB_Ski]

Monopoly is universally bad for consumers.

 

[François Pugh]

Flawed poll; the only answer should be "yes"

 

[Mike Thomas]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Wendy]

What is meant by monopolies in this context?

Since I’m learning tele this year, I’ve had to book a few lessons. Not that I’ve stopped taking lessons in alpine, but now I’m back in beginner-land with ski lessons. Add onto that the fact that there’s fewer telemark instructors.

Holy moly! Expensive! I can definitely see why that would price people out of the sport.
(Caveat: I’d be happy to see most of that fee go to the instructor, because their time and skill is worth it, but most of that fee doesn’t). I believe that was the main focus of another thread, so I’ll stop there.

 

[Philpug]

is the monopolisation of ski instruction in the US.

As @Mike Thomas said, it is not a monopoly of instruction at the mountain. Whether the resort/ski area is Vail, Aspen, Loveland or whatever Mom & Pop resort you list, they either own or lease the land and they pay for all of the improvements and daily upkeep including turning of the lifts, snowmaking, grooming and yes the ski school, which is indeed a profit center for them. Some resorts do allow outside instruction in, most do not because it is not in their financial interest. These outside instructors will also need to carry their own libalitity and rent space and get approval at the mountain, most cannot afford that.

As far as pay, it is paid at market rate, if an instructor does not like the pay at one resort, they can look to another resort or not instruct at all.

With all of that said ... the system is extremely broken and short sighted. Overall most resorts are just looking for a money grab and not concerned about the progression of the skier, if they were they would be looking to build loyalty in that student.

Where I have seen flaw, because there is a lack of instructors (either because of pay or need during a holiday week) when they take a (example) snowboard instructor, who might never have skied before, make them a ski instructor and after 5 days of "training" teaching beginners and charging that student the same as they would be charged if they had a LI or LII, that person is NOT getting their money's worth but that gets into the whole resorts treating the most important skier, the very first timer, by putting them in the hands of the least experienced employee, the rental shop kids who oversize marginal gear to the first time instructor, but that is a whole 'nuther talk show.

But to quote Inigo Montoya "You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means"

 

[martyg]

For perspective.... I was invited to join the adult private school at an area that is positioned as a luxury destination. Nothing is inexpensive there. After several interviews they sent me an email, "We are thrilled to welcome you to XXXXXXX's private adult ski school, and thrilled to offer you $12.75 per hour. For perspective, the rack rate to ski with me for the day was $1,249.

As I have said before, teaching skiing is like dating someone who treats you like shit, but the sex is incredible. At some point you have to respect yourself. I get that people don't do it for the money. I certainly don't need the money. The system is just incredibly abusive, and I don't react well to bullies or abusive situations. I am much happier as a guest at ski hills. However I do keep my PSIA membership current to attend clinics and improve my skill set.

 

[Jacob]

@Philpug @Mike Thomas , what do you call it when a single company has full control over a type of product or service in a particular location? To me, that sounds like a local monopoly.

As a consumer, you basically have one option for a particular service in any given location with no competition. If you choose to go to another location, then you’re just trading one local monopoly for another, and that’s assuming there’s another comparable location in the area that you can access.

Also, given the expansion of the mega corporations, even changing location isn’t necessarily going to give you a different option. You’re just going to get the same service from the same provider in a different place.

Compare that to Europe, where resorts have multiple ski schools operating in them. That competition leads to lower prices for the customers and higher wages for the instructors.

 

[wooglin]

@Philpug @Mike Thomas , what do you call it when a single company has full control over a type of product or service in a particular location? To me, that sounds like a local monopoly.

As a consumer, you basically have one option for a particular service in any given location with no competition. If you choose to go to another location, then you’re just trading one local monopoly for another, and that’s assuming there’s another comparable location in the area that you can access.

I can shop at Hannafords or I can shop at Shaws. By this definition each is a "local monopoly".

 

[dbostedo]

I can shop at Hannafords or I can shop at Shaws. By this definition each is a "local monopoly".

Agreed... you have to look at total competition and the definition of local, or you can get some absurdities. Like wanting to bring different food into a restaurant, because they have a "local" monopoly.

 

[dbostedo]

Yesterday I learned something new about the worrisome stat in the US about beginners returning to skiing. For a few years it's been about 83% don't return after day one, while about 17% do.

That 17% has now been broken down. 8% who take a lesson on day one return. 9% who don't take a lesson return. Sobering.

I'll repeat what I posted in another thread, as I'm afraid this could easily be misinterpreted...

Sorry to be pedantic, but I assume the 9% and 8% add to the 17%? If so, you can't say that "8% who take a lesson on day 1 return". Instead, all you can say is that of the people that return, almost half had a lesson (8 out of every 17).

To see this, pretend you have 100 first time skiers one day, and the next day 17 return, 8 having had lessons and 9 that didn't. And pretend you only gave 8 lessons the day before. Your "lesson return rate" would be 100%, and your "non-lesson return rate" would be 9 out of 92, or a bit under 10%. But you'd still have 17% total and a split of 8% and 9% of the total skiers. You could have any mix as well of lessons and non-lessons.

Knowing that the 17% return rate consists of 8% lessons and 9% non-lessons doesn't tell you the whole story without more information about how many people take lessons and don't take lessons in the pool.

 

[pchewn]

This will be my first year as an in instructor at Timberline Lodge. Like many other instructors, I'm not doing it for the income, I'm doing it for the outcome.

 

[Jacob]

I can shop at Hannafords or I can shop at Shaws. By this definition each is a "local monopoly".

No, because your town has both, so they both compete in the same location.

Imagine if your town only had Hannafords and nothing else, while the nearest town to yours only had Shaws and nothing else. Then imagine that all the towns your region only had one or the other. Each town would have a local monopoly, and the region would have a duopoly.

 

[Philpug]

@Philpug @Mike Thomas , what do you call it when a single company has full control over a type of product or service in a particular location? To me, that sounds like a local monopoly.

So, I can go into Walmart and set up a stand to sell fruit?

 

[Jacob]

Agreed... you have to look at total competition and the definition of local, or you can get some absurdities. Like wanting to bring different food into a restaurant, because they have a "local" monopoly.

In St. Anton, for example, I can take lessons from three or four different ski schools without changing resorts. So that’s one location with multiple options.

In a US resort, there is one ski school. If I want a different option, then I have to go to a different resort, which has one ski school of its own. So that’s one option per location.

 

[Jacob]

So, I can go into Walmart and set up a stand to sell fruit?

No, but within a single town you will probably have multiple supermarkets to choose from, so you don’t have to drive to another town if you don’t like what Walmart is selling.

 

[Philpug]

In a US resort, there is one ski school. If I want a different option, then I have to go to a different resort, which has one ski school of its own. So that’s one option per location.

So you do have an option ... you can go to another resort. Skiing is a luxury, not a staple ... as much as we think it might be. You don't have to ski/

 

[Roundturns]

For perspective.... I was invited to join the adult private school at an area that is positioned as a luxury destination. Nothing is inexpensive there. After several interviews they sent me an email, "We are thrilled to welcome you to XXXXXXX's private adult ski school, and thrilled to offer you $12.75 per hour. For perspective, the rack rate to ski with me for the day was $1,249.

As I have said before, teaching skiing is like dating someone who treats you like shit, but the sex is incredible. At some point you have to respect yourself. I get that people don't do it for the money. I certainly don't need the money. The system is just incredibly abusive, and I don't react well to bullies or abusive situations. I am much happier as a guest at ski hills. However I do keep my PSIA membership current to attend clinics and improve my skill set.

And to add insult to injury, a lot of people believe the instructor is being well compensated because the cost of the lesson is so high!
I’ve talked to people who are on vacation and paying significant money for the kids in ski school, and are shocked to learn the instructors are poorly compensated.

After all its “reasonable” to believe at these high rates the instructor is being well compensated.
PSIA instructors need to strike and stop this nonsense and achieve some compensation reforms.

 

[martyg]

And to add insult to injury, a lot of people believe the instructor is being well compensated because the cost of the lesson is so high!
I’ve talked to people who are on vacation and paying significant money for the kids in ski school, and are shocked to learn the instructors are poorly compensated.

After all its “reasonable” to believe at these high rates the instructor is being well compensated.
PSIA instructors need to strike and stop this nonsense and achieve some compensation reforms.

Agreed. However as long as you have unskilled and untrained dude-bros who have the slightest mastery of personal hygiene and show up somewhat on time, the ski school will have bodies.

It is not how I have treated my people and the brands that I have built. However it seems to work for the resort industry. Ski instructors, IMO, are the embodiment of the resort's brand. They are with guests for a huge slice of their day. They form personal relationships. They facilitate guests reaching their goals, often overcoming significant fears. Ski hills should treat instructors as an important branding element.