...
-
For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Vail takes over the skiing world....
- Thread starter Bob Barnes
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,357
It doesn't seem to me that Vail's wages are worse then the status quo. At least on the East Coast anyway.
No. The thread was about instructor pay, because the entire video in the OP was about instructor pay. I assume Mr Barnes posted it because of the shout-out to Aspen for paying instructors more while charging students less.
FWIW, Breck and Keystone continue to have amazing deals on 10-lesson series. The Breck lesson setup has become more expensive and restrictive, but is still a killer deal. Keystone's is still very cheap, but there are too few advanced students signing up to get a nice high level group going (a friend of mine is working on getting friends to switch over so that that changes). These deals are only helpful if you are local and are at least a level 5 (maybe 6?) skier, but they're still killer.
@Monique - I thought engineers just estimated everything?
SCIENTIFIC wild ass guess.
From that video, it sounds like Aspen finds a way to keep their employees and they treat them like assets where Vail gives their employees a reason to leave and treats them like liabilities.
If someone woudl like to take the task of researching group & private lesson prices from various resorts and if some of the instructors would like to give us an idea what is made in each lesson we can do a spreadsheet. Of course it will be kept confidential.
Don't expect that deal to stay around at Breckenridge, did you hear in the video about increasing margins..every year? The Breck deal, while is a great value for the consumer it does not have the margin Vail expects. Just what I have heard.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Posts
- 6,333
Private lessons in Europe even from excellent English speaking ski schools = way less than almost any destination resort in the US. But in the US it strikes me they are basically for the price insensitive rather than those who need the special attention to learn
Lesson rates are ridiculously high everywhere, but VR stands out - a half-day lesson cost very nearly what I paid for the EPIC pass. And this was a big reason I went elsewhere for lessons after my first day.
I think it would be interesting to know what keeps most folks from taking lessons - price? don't want to "waste" time during a week trip? other? And have the ski schools done market research on this or are they just setting prices based on other factors?
I think it would be interesting to know what keeps most folks from taking lessons - price? don't want to "waste" time during a week trip? other? And have the ski schools done market research on this or are they just setting prices based on other factors?
Lessons at Squaw work pretty well for me. I prefer half day powder line cut lessons. Had some of my best days like that. Reasonably affordable. None of these guys complained about money.
Our European guided days were good but I felt that they were rather expensive. Maybe less than the Vail rates but more than I pay at Squaw. Of course the European guides had to work harder (at least we didn't fall into a crevasse - but it was close). The Squaw instructors just had to yield first tracks on the sweet pitches they found. Maybe that's harder...
I have a buddy who instructs at Mammoth. The money is irrelevant for him (he's pretty well off) - he just loves doing it. Maybe he's part of the problem (or windfall for the resorts).
Eric
Our European guided days were good but I felt that they were rather expensive. Maybe less than the Vail rates but more than I pay at Squaw. Of course the European guides had to work harder (at least we didn't fall into a crevasse - but it was close). The Squaw instructors just had to yield first tracks on the sweet pitches they found. Maybe that's harder...
I have a buddy who instructs at Mammoth. The money is irrelevant for him (he's pretty well off) - he just loves doing it. Maybe he's part of the problem (or windfall for the resorts).
Eric
I don't know about how the instructors are paid, but all of these resorts have differing lesson rates and all are considerably less than VR. Basically, these resorts charge for a full day lesson what VR charges for a half day. Alta even has the ability to request lessons in units of hours ($105/hour, I think). If I had to guess, I'd say that Alta pays more than industry average based on the instructor I had last spring saying he'd been with Alta for something like 35 years.
If so, they need to up their game. I don't eat @ N* often, but the food in general is mediocre airport food. Alpine and Sugar Bowl significantly better. Rose is worse, but at least you aren't getting gouged for garbageThere are some belief that Vail is just an expensive burger joint and their main purpose is to sell Epicburgers, thats where the money is made...the skiing is just the hook.
I think it all falls into the concept of price elasticity of demand. Look at the explosion in window ticket prices, which are clearly relatively inelastic: if somebody shows up at the window, they are likely to pay whatever is charged. You have to pretty much cancel your ski day otherwise.
Season passes are probably a lot more elastic, and the therefore the gap will grow between very cheap season passes and very expensive walk up day passes.
I think ski school prices are also fairly inelastic. You don't have much choice, and parents wanting to ski without their kids are going to pay.
Other people are going to weigh a day spent free skiing (perhaps poorly) against a day spent in lessons. You don't have to be good. There's no score. You are only achieving for yourself. So people who are paying are likely willing to keep doing so, and price is relatively inelastic to demand.
Ultimately, the "price"' is for one thing: the right to ride a fast lift up a mountain. If that one thing is relatively price inelastic, which it seems to be, then all of the adjacencies like food or lessons are likely to be inelastic as well. There so simply isn't much reason to accommodate demand for those consumables and services, because it is the chair lift that creates the demand.
That's why leaving your chairs idle in the summer leaves a ton of money on the table and further why Vail is buying resorts where it can spin 8-9 months out of the year instead of 4-5. It's the very simple monetizing of the primary asset that has no competition.
Back to the original post--how ski areas are able to monopolize the forest lands with their permits for the ski areas and their concessions, including ski schools. Ski areas purchase a lease lasting 40 years and they bundle multiple activities under one lease. Could you imagine if someone forgot to renew the lease (aka PCMR)?
I've done the coaching for food, lodging, tickets, and a small fee back in the day. Knowing what I know now, probably illegally--but I was the invited coach at these areas.
At University of Utah, I used to teach a for-credit mogul skiing class at Alta that was not related to their ski school in any way. So somehow, there was a loophole, or some other type of agreement.
Some coaching programs are able to get around the monopoly a ski area has on the use of the land. For example, Team Summit has Alpine, Freeskiing, and Snowboarding programs. Although their administrative offices are out of Copper Mountain, the athletes ski at Copper Mountain, Keystone, Breckenridge and Arapahoe Basin. Based on their web site, I do not believe they are owned by Copper Mountain.
Somehow, Vail and non-Vail resorts are coming together with some type of agreement that permits coaching at multiple resorts. The resorts may be permitting this since this group has very low revenue (less than $1 million and in the red last season.) Programs cost $1500-$6600 per year depending on age, ability, and number of days training. They also let non-members train for $175/day. In the 1970s, Team Summit was Summit Skiing and Educational Foundation. Although not a 501c3 non-profit, they may be getting a break for the "greater good" with alumni competing in national and international competitions.
@dean_spirito , do you have any insight on how this program is operated?
Edited for clarity--typing too late at night.
I've done the coaching for food, lodging, tickets, and a small fee back in the day. Knowing what I know now, probably illegally--but I was the invited coach at these areas.
At University of Utah, I used to teach a for-credit mogul skiing class at Alta that was not related to their ski school in any way. So somehow, there was a loophole, or some other type of agreement.
Some coaching programs are able to get around the monopoly a ski area has on the use of the land. For example, Team Summit has Alpine, Freeskiing, and Snowboarding programs. Although their administrative offices are out of Copper Mountain, the athletes ski at Copper Mountain, Keystone, Breckenridge and Arapahoe Basin. Based on their web site, I do not believe they are owned by Copper Mountain.
Somehow, Vail and non-Vail resorts are coming together with some type of agreement that permits coaching at multiple resorts. The resorts may be permitting this since this group has very low revenue (less than $1 million and in the red last season.) Programs cost $1500-$6600 per year depending on age, ability, and number of days training. They also let non-members train for $175/day. In the 1970s, Team Summit was Summit Skiing and Educational Foundation. Although not a 501c3 non-profit, they may be getting a break for the "greater good" with alumni competing in national and international competitions.
@dean_spirito , do you have any insight on how this program is operated?
Edited for clarity--typing too late at night.
Last edited:
People have been saying that every year since its inception. If it goes away, I guess we'll have to get a condo elsewhere. Learn a new mountain. Unless of course we're retired by then and can ski weekdays.
Nope. You can get much cheaper lessons at small resorts, like Beaver in Utah.
It all started with the employee helmet rules..
I sit corrected - thanks! Based on the places I have skied, I assumed the prices were more or less standard.
I had a conversation with an instructor last season and my understanding is that if you are on staff at a ski school at one resort, you are able to operate at other resorts. The instructor just has to let the resort know and be wearing their ski school apparel. My understanding is that the ban against outside instructors is for pure freelancers.
It's a good reason to consider smaller resorts that might otherwise be off your radar!
You comments about not having to be good and not being scored are interesting... if you're on the fence about paying for a lesson I can easily see these thoughts tipping you towards not signing up. It also bangs up against something I've wondered about for a while now... if lessons were less costly, would significantly more folks sign up? Sadly, I don't think so and probably for these same reasons.
That's an excellent point. And also now a factor in how I go about deciding where I'll be renting a house next.
*If* someone isn't taking lessons and isn't doing harm to themselves and others, I'm not sure it's sad, really. I've always wanted to get better at any activity I've been interested in (Type A, right here!), and I always want to take lessons - I know people have figured this stuff out, so I don't see why I'd want to reinvent the wheel. But I actually have some respect for people who just want to go out and have fun and don't care about "doing it right."
What's more sad are people who do want to take lessons, but can't justify the expense.
And if the person who doesn't take lessons thinks they're a better skier than they are, well, most still aren't hurting anyone with that delusion.