PSIA clinics for non-instructors?

[abcd]

I suggest we move this question from ethical domain to pure economics.
Are clinics a sustainable business in itself or PSIA has to sponsor them because registration fees do not cover the costs?
Assuming they are profitable, it's in the interest of PSIA to provide clinics if there is demand and everyone would be happy.
Who might not be happy is the host mountain that potentially loses a client for a private lesson. Again, however, it's not the OP's fault that the mountain doesn't offer anything he could participate in (except for, maybe, prohibitevely expensive private lessons)

 

[Mike King]

In the West, the mountains have a monopoly on providing ski lessons. They allow PSIA to conduct clinics because the target of the clinics is ski instructors, and since the clinic is being held at their mountain, will most likely include, if not be almost solely attended by, their employees. So there is a benefit to the host mountain of having a clinic at their facility.

If PSIA started offering group lessons catered to the ski public, they would be a competitor. It's (highly) unlikely that the resorts would agree to that -- they'd stop allowing PSIA to conduct the clinics at their facilities.

The number of non-instructors belonging to PSIA, I believe, is pretty small. Hence, a member non-instructor attending a PSIA clinic isn't really much of a concern to the host resorts.

Mike