• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Ski School Monopolies

Should ski school monopolies be ended

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 96.7%
  • No

    Votes: 2 3.3%

  • Total voters
    60

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
Nope. My point was that regardless of USFS permits, the ski area owns the lifts and has every right to exclude competitors.

dm

Not if they are operating them as a common carrier.

Ownership and operation of a common carrier does NOT give them right to exclude competitors. There might be other leverage, but ownership or operation of the lift ain't it.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
This is a bit like asking in 1979 why doesn't someone just start a phone company?

To be fair, the monopoly did give us the transistor and copper-to-the-house wiring. And Pupin-style repeaters. And hybrid circuits. And vocoding. And...
 
Last edited:

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,907
Location
Behavioral sink
I do think fatbob is closer to reality with the virtual model which certainly has less overhead but still needs to resolve the challenge of just how many clients you can manage synchronously if they all want near real-time feedback while on the chairlift and also working out just how much the market will bear for such a model. Are people really going to pay $100 an hour or even $50 an hour for that type of model? and when is the clock running? and could that ultimately lead to an off-shore call center giving virtual lessons? And would instructors still be attracted if the job was desk-bound? But, as fatbob also points out, the rewards in this situation for disruption are not that large to be particularly attractive to drive investment and change.

You forgot the other tech.

Your ski boot insert will be running Apple or Android - so the only question is whether you'll get an instructive push from Apple's or Google's AI :D

Video-based virtual instruction is to live instructors like Netflix mailers were to video stores. The beginning of a definite end.
 

newboots

Learning to carve!
Skier
Joined
Dec 9, 2016
Posts
1,367
Location
Catskills
I just caught up on a lot of this thread. In keeping with the general feeling about skiing safety, I want to point out that cheaper lessons, if many took advantage, could lead to safer trails.

Plus enforcement.

I have paid for a few lessons and a few clinics. Do I need more? Absolutely, but after spending money on passes, skis, boots, and bringing lunch in my pocket (usually), I find the cost prohibitive. Last year, I joined the Hudson Valley Ski Club and, for $50/year, we have several free lessons (maybe 4-5 days/season). They are group lessons but they generally have only about 5-8 students. The instructor is great. I always take something away from those lessons.
 

SkiSchoolPros

Impact Ecosystem- ie.Money with Meaning
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
207
Location
Colorado
I just caught up on a lot of this thread. In keeping with the general feeling about skiing safety, I want to point out that cheaper lessons, if many took advantage, could lead to safer trails.

Plus enforcement.

I have paid for a few lessons and a few clinics. Do I need more? Absolutely, but after spending money on passes, skis, boots, and bringing lunch in my pocket (usually), I find the cost prohibitive. Last year, I joined the Hudson Valley Ski Club and, for $50/year, we have several free lessons (maybe 4-5 days/season). They are group lessons but they generally have only about 5-8 students. The instructor is great. I always take something away from those lessons.
Not happy with prices? Let the USFS or your congress rep know.

The standard Ski Area Term Special Use Permit states
"C. 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."

Unfortunately, the industry has been long on monopoly and short on regulation for many years.

From Tom Quinn of the USFS-

"Among Mather and Albright’s most lasting contributions to national park policy was the
concept of the “regulated monopoly” concessioner. These businesses were, however,
often long on monopoly and short on regulation. The general theory for some years
prior to Mather had been that competition should be depended on to keep prices down
and the quality of services up."

"The competition versus monopoly issue was further highlighted by Representative
Jack Brooks of Texas:
Practically every sentence of this legislation is objectionable. . . . Park con-
cessioners, like any other businessmen, should be subjected to the rigors of
competition at least every 20 or 30 years. Most businessmen face competition
every day. We members of Congress must face election every two years. Is
it asking too much for a park concessioner to meet the competition on equal
ground every decade or so? Some of the park concessioners have lived in and
on the national parks since before I was born. . . . The whole purpose of this bill
is to remove all competition from park concessioner contracts and to enact into
law perpetual monopolies in our national parks. . . . In short, the entire bill is
solely in the interest of the concessioners and primarily at the expense of the
public (Congressional Record September 14, 1965: 23634)."

In 2002, Tom Quinn of the USFS concluded. "Given that private recreation operations on national forest land are largely indistinguishable from those in the national parks, the notion
of recreation enterprises as a form of public utility seems equally applicable to each
agency. Acknowledgment of the public utility paradigm brings to bear a series of
agency obligations with respect to private enterprise regulation. History indicates
that in many cases, these obligations have been neither acknowledged nor fulfilled.9
Future policies must be evaluated in light of this history."

The current instructor shortage and high ski school prices has been building for years thanks to what amounts to UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES.
 
Last edited:

jimtransition

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 15, 2016
Posts
473
Location
Niseko/Queenstown
It's clear to anyone that instructors and guests would be better off without the monopoly system. It's also obvious why the ski resorts want to maintain it, I doubt it will change.

In Europe there is an airbnb style site called 'Maison Sport' for instructors, I just got my first booking from there today, seems like a great system.
 

Dave Marshak

All Time World Champion
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
1,454
This thread is off the rails.
Do you really think the Federal regulatory authority to limit anti-competitve practices is going to come down on ... ski schools? The government has been ignoring market concentration in the whole ski industry for 30 years now. Also in radio andTV broadcasting, the energy sector, airlines and dozens of ither things. Ski schools aren't a pimple on the ass of the monopolistic practices that tha government ignores.
The ski school business model of randomly showing up for a lesson for a random group from a random instructor was never going to work for anything but the first learn to ski lesson. Don't accept that. Instead, form you own group of skiers with similar skills and goals, and negotiate your own program with the ski school. Insist on the authority to dismiss the instructor for any reason or no reason. Every ski school I ever worked at would take that deal.

dm
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Do you really think the Federal regulatory authority to limit anti-competitve practices is going to come down on ... ski schools?

There's a difference between thinking it will and thinking it ought to. I'm guessing many of the critics of the current organization of ski instruction are in the latter category.
 

In2h2o

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Posts
453
Location
West Coast
Do you really think the Federal regulatory authority to limit anti-competitve practices is going to come down on ... ski schools?

Nope, they actually protect the schools by prosecuting the competition albeit individuals operating with out a permit. FWIW See recent article in Mammoth's local paper The Sheet
https://thesheetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sheet_12252021.pd
See Page 2 THE BUSTING OF TOM JOAD

……He first launched learntosurfhb.com, and later followed that up with learntosnowboardbb.com.
How it worked: Folks seeking lessons would log onto the website. Murchison would connect the customer with one of his instructors. He’d leave it to the client and instructor to coordinate their lesson, and take a cut for his trouble.

Problem is, in the case of the snowboard lessons, they were being conducted on United States Forest Service property. Without a permit. While taking advantage of the hospitality, and lift access, and infrastructure of the designated permit-holder, namely Big Bear and Mammoth.

………Then, United States Forest Service law enforcement got involved. On February 20, 2020, according to the U.S. Government’s Trial Brief, “Law Enforcement Officer Mark Scott along with two USFS Special Agents acting in an undercover capacity, conducted an undercover operation involving snowboarding lessons at the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area on the Inyo National Forest. Officer Scott purchased snowboarding lessons for the two undercover Special Agents through the website www.learntosnowboardbb. com. After purchasing the lesson, the Special Agents were contacted by an individual Steven Hovey who instructed the Special Agents on how to snow- board.”

Murchison was charged with conducting work activity/service on National Forest lands without authorization. Murchison was subsequently fined $500 and placed on two years probation, during which time he is forbidden from stepping foot on the Inyo National Forest.
 

In2h2o

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Posts
453
Location
West Coast

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
Sums up the thread. “Authorized permittees” is what they’re called.

—————————————
“The USDA Forest Service is entrusted with sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests to meet the needs of present and future generations,” said Don Hoang, Special Agent in Charge, Forest Service - Law Enforcement and Investigations, Pacific Southwest Region. “Unpermitted activity on National Forest System lands, however, negatively impacts our shared natural resources and authorized permittees. Forest Service Law Enforcement investigates and prosecutes unauthorized use like in this case to ensure the sustainability of National Forest System land.”

This case was the product of an investigation by the U.S. Forest Service and the Newport Beach Police Department. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Philip N. Tankovich Assistant and U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Spivak prosecuted the case.
——————————-
 

SkiSchoolPros

Impact Ecosystem- ie.Money with Meaning
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
207
Location
Colorado
Today President Biden said "Capitalism without Competition isn't Capitalism, it's EXPLOITATION!"
So why hasn't the US Forest Service allowed for Ski School competition like they have in Europe?
 

Jerez

Skiing the powder
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Posts
2,993
Location
New Mexico
Because saving mostly people of means from exploitation while recreating on govt owned land is not the top of the list of the needy. :duck: (I seem to be using this emoji way too often lately)
 

LiquidFeet

instructor
Instructor
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,697
Location
New England
Because saving mostly people of means from exploitation while recreating on govt owned land is not the top of the list of the needy. :duck: (I seem to be using this emoji way too often lately)
OK, I'll do the deed.
The people "saved" by allowing competitive ski instruction would include the instructors. They are not mostly people of means. But their numbers are small when considered on a national scale and no one cares but themselves and their families.
 

SkiSchoolPros

Impact Ecosystem- ie.Money with Meaning
Skier
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Posts
207
Location
Colorado
Because saving mostly people of means from exploitation while recreating on govt owned land is not the top of the list of the needy. :duck: (I seem to be using this emoji way too often lately)
Lack of competition not only hurts wealthy skiers looking to take private lessons, but the monopsony in the labor market hurts the wages of those who work at the resorts.
 

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top