Aspen Skiing Co clamping down on underground instructors

[snowtravel]

From the get go, the single concessioner model was designed to be a controlled or regulated monopoly. The standard Ski Area permit says:
"REGULATING SERVICES AND RATES. The authorized officer shall have the authority to regulate the adequacy and type of services provided the public under this permit and to require that these services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. These prices may be regulated by the authorized officer, provided that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different from those charged by comparable or competing enterprises."

Depending on the day and how you book, Vail and Beaver Creek charge $900-1,250+ for a 3 hour private.

One could say the USFS hasn't done their job as a regulator, but I suppose that Vail Ski School could always say they charge exactly the same as every other authorized ski school in Eagle County (the Vail Valley, which logs 2.5 million skier visits a year).

Of course, if you live in Avon, CO and are willing to drive 39 miles over Vail Pass to the Frisco Adventure Park you can take a 2.75 hour private beginner ski lesson for under $300 INCLUDING LIFT TICKET, about 70% less than what your local mountain, Beaver Creek, charges for a 3 hour private, NOT including lift ticket. When you advance beyond the bunny hill, you can make the 40+ minute drive to Ski Cooper and take a 2 hour private for under $200. Once you are good enough to become an instructor, you can take the wage offered by VR, or drive back to Frisco or 90+ miles to Aspen to get a higher wage.

For those that think a local monopoly isn't really a monopoly, would you be happy if all the grocery stores and gas stations within a 40 mile radius of your home had the same owner who charged 3 X as much as the businesses outside that radius? What if you were a worker who didn't own a car or were trying to reduce your environmental footprint by driving less...would you be ok if all local businesses had a common owner who paid low wages?

What SSP gets right about this is, he actually has something to share. Underlying our current predicament as ski teachers (and former ones) is a context and a long and almost tragic history.

It's really helpful and informative to include and examine the facts about resort anti-competition.

(The other thing, not so much.)

 

[markojp]

"What do you suggest?"

We've long needed a free market here. Ironically it's only elsewhere we can find it. In Austria, France, and Switzerland, for instance, ski instructors can obtain professional certifications and work independently, setting their own rates and building their own clientele. Some instructors even operate their own ski schools.

Gradually, as competition (rather than resort hiring) lifts up the best teachers—and the market compensates them accordingly—snowsports teaching will become a true profession and more and more U.S. skiers will take lessons in an organic, virtuous circle of quality.

(In the short term especially, competition is tough on everyone, resorts included. But it's supposed to be the American way: in the end we'll all be better off for it.)

We're actually in agreement on this and discussed it this past fall with the former chair.... L3 (w/UBI #) gets permission to teach at any area on US or State land, instructor provides proof of liability insurance, PSIA creates a pool and partners with an insurance provider to keep costs relatively reasonable.

 

[snowtravel]

We're actually in agreement on this and discussed it this past fall with the former chair.... L3 (w/UBI #) gets permission to teach at any area on US or State land, instructor provides proof of liability insurance, PSIA creates a pool and partners with an insurance provider to keep costs relatively reasonable.

Sounds interesting so far, though I have no idea who “the former chair“ is.

Be great to hear more details.

(UBI = usage based insurance?)

 

[Mike King]

"What do you suggest?"

We've long needed a free market here. Ironically it's only elsewhere we can find it. In Austria, France, and Switzerland, for instance, ski instructors can obtain professional certifications and work independently, setting their own rates and building their own clientele. Some instructors even operate their own ski schools.

Gradually, as competition (rather than resort hiring) lifts up the best teachers—and the market compensates them accordingly—snowsports teaching will become a true profession and more and more U.S. skiers will take lessons in an organic, virtuous circle of quality.

(In the short term especially, competition is tough on everyone, resorts included. But it's supposed to be the American way: in the end we'll all be better off for it.)

Ah, but professional certifications are often seen as restricting competition....

Just saying...

 

[snowtravel]

Ah, but professional certifications are often seen as restricting competition....

Just saying...

Mostly agree, but some are worse than others.

That's why, when I found this thread and decided to comment, I had to say at least something about PSIA. The main problem being, it's but a captive of a larger and in some ways unrelated industry, rather than an organic, independent or genuine professional organization.

(As I understand PSIA history, it never was.)

 

[markojp]

Ah, but professional certifications are often seen as restricting competition....

Just saying...

Yet they're required in Europe if you want to run your own show if my understanding is correct. The PNW is a bit of an oddity. There are still a few areas that allow concession schools, women's programs, and different camps to operate, but this isn't going to be a trend toward more access for non-area affiliated schools.

 

[markojp]

Sounds interesting so far, though I have no idea who “the former chair“ is.

Be great to hear more details.

(UBI = usage based insurance?)

Ed Younglove.

UBI...

Unified Business Identifier needed to open your own business, pay taxes, etc...

 

[snowtravel]

Yet they're required in Europe if you want to run your own show if my understanding is correct. The PNW is a bit of an oddity. There are still a few areas that allow concession schools, women's programs, and different camps to operate, but this isn't going to be a trend toward more access for non-area affiliated schools.

Of course lots of ski teachers (including me) have run their own shows and, like you apparently, have achieved individual success. That doesn't speak to the larger problem or the public perspective: from a wider vantage, we and the PSIA are largely irrelevant if not ridiculed, and only the ski schools matter (if indeed instruction matters at all).

Also, I'll take your word for it on the UBI...probably specific to particular states.

As to Ed Younglove, I see he's the former Chairman of the PSIA board.

(Shall I hold my breath while the "free market for snowsports teaching" initiative quickly moves forward?)

 

[markojp]

Of course lots of ski teachers (including me) have run their own shows and, like you apparently, have achieved individual success. That doesn't speak to the larger problem or the public perspective: from a wider vantage, we and the PSIA are largely irrelevant if not ridiculed, and only the ski schools matter (if indeed instruction matters at all).

Also, I'll take your word for it on the UBI...probably specific to particular states.

As to Ed Younglove, I see he's the former Chairman of the PSIA board.

(Shall I hold my breath while the "free market for snowsports teaching" initiative quickly moves forward?)

If you do a search, you'll see there's quite a history of threads regarding the topic you've outlined.

Public perception, and no doubt mileage and experiences, vary. I guess I'm more in the Glenn Plake camp of 'get in and get involved' school of action and thought. I honestly don't really worry about what others think about PSIA. Our ski school staff, including myself, just tries to do the absolute best we can to pay it all foward to the current and next generation of skiers (alpine and telemark) and snowboarders, whether we're PSIA/AASI members or not. Heck, much of the non-skiing public thinks the whole sport is a ridiculous indulgence for the rich anyway. They're not all together wrong, but also not quite right, either. There's a pattern of perception here at whatever scale and metric one measures the sport for both better and worse.

 

[James]

Most skiers are groomer zoomers. They think they are good skiers if they ski fast.

It’s interesting that in Quebec at Owl’s Head and Mont Orford there’s seems to be a very high percentage of good technical skiers. We were at Orford on a Monday, so maybe it’s skewed. Orford has some really steep groomers and many people carving on them. Even the ones not that good we’re trying, which is a big difference. The usual is just drifting down pointing skis left and right and approaching terminal velocity.

Percentages are likely skewed by being a Monday, but we were at Owl’s Head on Saturday.
We were at Sutton on a really crowded Sunday. Still a lot of good skiers. I think the very first lift we went up with a woman in her late 30’s on slalom skis on an alleged pow day. Honestly, since we really didn’t do tight woods, those wouldn’t been that bad if not for the rocks. Still working on the levitation skills.

We skied mostly mogul trails there and there’s a large quantity of skiers who seem to just point them down and hope for the best. It’s actually quite remarkable they make it most of the time but you don’t want to be anywhere near them.

 

[martyg]

Ah, but professional certifications are often seen as restricting competition....

Just saying...

Professional certification, in the river world, is a way to access liability insurance including certificates of additionally insured. Without those certificates of additionally insured you would be hard pressed to find a venue to teach at. Sure, you could "fly under radar". However eventually FS, NPS, BLM, state, city or county will be asking hard questions.

Being certified tells overseeing organizations, be it public, private or an insurance carrier, that you have reached a certain bar in your professional development, and that you are a worthy risk.

I am not in the ski industry anymore, but imagine that insurance carriers also look at the risk of exposure when assessing ski area policies. These probably stretch from how may OSHA complaints were filed to lift maintenance records and what percentage of instructors are certified, just like my homeowners insurance does an on-site inspection of my house for fire mitigation.

 

[martyg]

We're actually in agreement on this and discussed it this past fall with the former chair.... L3 (w/UBI #) gets permission to teach at any area on US or State land, instructor provides proof of liability insurance, PSIA creates a pool and partners with an insurance provider to keep costs relatively reasonable.

What you are missing... In meetings with paid professional leadership and excomm of the various ski trade associations, it has been made quite clear that PSIA and NSP are, if they were for-profit, be wholly owned subsidiaries of NSAA whose mission it is to provide areas with low cost / highly trained employees who won't bitch too much.

Both organizations started with the best of intentions, and I count some of the founders as friends. However it has evolved into something totally different, based on my experience.

 

[snowtravel]

If you do a search, you'll see there's quite a history of threads regarding the topic you've outlined.

Public perception, and no doubt mileage and experiences, vary. I guess I'm more in the Glenn Plake camp of 'get in and get involved' school of action and thought. I honestly don't really worry about what others think about PSIA. Our ski school staff, including myself, just tries to do the absolute best we can to pay it all foward to the current and next generation of skiers (alpine and telemark) and snowboarders, whether we're PSIA/AASI members or not. Heck, much of the non-skiing public thinks the whole sport is a ridiculous indulgence for the rich anyway. They're not all together wrong, but also not quite right, either. There's a pattern of perception here at whatever scale and metric one measures the sport for both better and worse.

It’s easy to guess what those threads you mention generally say. Like your sentiment above, most ski teachers find a way to rationalize the PSIA status quo and accept the roles they’re given.

For my part, I’ll never stop dreaming of a system truer to American values, in which we're free agents, directly accountable to and serving only our clients. Regardless of personal commitment, an utter lack of independence fundamentally constrains what, where and how we do our work.

While there are arguments for resort oversight, the current model skews too far towards corporate control.

(Let's at least be clear about it: without autonomy, we're ESIA not PSIA.)

 

[snowtravel]

What you are missing... In meetings with paid professional leadership and excomm of the various ski trade associations, it has been made quite clear that PSIA and NSP are, if they were for-profit, be wholly owned subsidiaries of NSAA whose mission it is to provide areas with low cost / highly trained employees who won't bitch too much.

Both organizations started with the best of intentions, and I count some of the founders as friends. However it has evolved into something totally different, based on my experience.

"PSIA and NSP are . . . wholly owned subsidiaries of NSAA whose mission it is to provide areas with low cost / highly trained employees who won't bitch too much."

Spot-on.

(They even share offices with NSAA.)

 

[Rich McP]

It’s easy to guess what those threads you mention generally say.

You might try reading more and pontificating less.

 

[snowtravel]

You might try reading more and pontificating less.

A ski instructor is telling someone else to (wait for it)…stop pontificating?

My views are informed by firsthand experience as a Level III instructor, decades of teaching, in-depth research into the historical, legal, economic and administrative aspects of this issue, and my professional experience as an attorney since 1990.

I’ve studied the antitrust, unfair business practices and labor law implications closely going back to PSIA's inception: that’s why I can guess the arguments. There’s a powerful ethical, business and legal case against the anticompetitive forces at work here, with multiple violations of the law nationwide (and on many dimensions). It’s difficult and complex but I’m hardly just pontificating uninformed opinions. The last time I advocated on behalf of ski teachers over a decade ago, the small resort-employer gave almost every ski teacher there backpay (totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars), and without so much as filing a lawsuit. Tellingly, management and industry reps all wanted to keep our settlement quick and quiet; those same violations continued at other resorts.

I've aimed to present just the core of my concerns thoughtfully and fairly, acknowledging competing views while advocating for change I believe is much needed. What you see here barely hints at the true size and scope of the problem. Nevertheless, if you see flaws in my reasoning or have additional knowledge to share, I'm sincerely open to hearing it.

After seeing the recent Aspen story—one like many before it—I posted in hopes of gauging whether attitudes have evolved with the new generation of ski teachers. If the reaction is to label a principled position as mere pontification, that's disappointing. But it won't deter me from continuing to advocate for greater instructor autonomy and a better overall system for those I know to be dedicated pros, and their students as well. There's too much at stake.

Again, I welcome thoughtful discourse. However, if all you have to offer is glib ad hominem, then perhaps I am not the one who needs the attitude adjustment.

 

[dan ross]

To boil this down to its most reductive, it’s like bringing “ contraband “snacks into a movie theater- movie theaters want you to buy their popcorn. The power of the captive audience.

To be less reductive, Federal lands that have long term leases have certain requirements to protect the land while the lessee profits from its use . Anything that changes the nature of or endangers the land itself beyond what was prescribed /permitted ( Lifts , access roads , etc.) is quite naturally prohibited. You don’t own it , you are only “ renting” so this makes sense.

As for the argument that the lessor paid for the infrastructure, so they can completely control activities on that property- yes but does that give them the right to what is essentially a monopoly on services for the entirety of their lease? Perhaps long after that infrastructure has been amortized/ written off/ down within its lifecycle ? Didn’t the consumer pay for access to this infrastructure and to what degree do they have the right , if any , to express their choices or discretion as a consumer?

I don’t know the answer to any of these questions and while some legal precedent seems to be black letter boilerplate, things are constantly in flux. In the end it seems to be “ He ( or she ) who owns the theatre gets to sell the popcorn.

 

[Rich McP]

If the reaction is to label a principled position as mere pontification, that's disappointing.

Again, I welcome thoughtful discourse. However, if all you have to offer is glib ad hominem, then perhaps I am not the one who needs the attitude adjustment.

I didn't label a principled position as mere pontification. I think maybe you are being willfully obtuse? I'm calling out your bloviation, that's all.

"You might try reading more and pontificating less."

Or just stick to rational arguments, and save the judgements for people you've actually taken the time know...or save the judgements.

 

[markojp]

Thing is S.T., all this has been hashed over many many times. We all tend to make statements when we really need to ask more questions to understand the howw, what, and why of what others think. We're all guilty of pontification from time to time. In the end, I try to imagine I'll eventually ski with everyone here at some point IRL, and would like to enjoy the experience... it helps to temper arguments, and yes, to even apologize to folks here when my assumptions bite me in the a$$.

 

[snowtravel]

Thing is S.T., all this has been hashed over many many times. We all tend to make statements when we really need to ask more questions to understand the howw, what, and why of what others think. We're all guilty of pontification from time to time. In the end, I try to imagine I'll eventually ski with everyone here at some point IRL, and would like to enjoy the experience... it helps to temper arguments, and yes, to even apologize to folks here when my assumptions bite me in the a$$.

Thanks, all the feedback is instructive on many levels and I'll take it to heart.

As others here have recently shown, there's worse here than I've ever posted (or will do).

For the present I'll simply add: I haven't judged anyone here personally, rather just sharply criticized the lack of autonomy and PSIA's role in holding ski teaching back. Competition can fix that.

(Others may reflect on why general observations might provoke such strong personal reactions.)