or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Vail Resorts buying Mt. Brighton, MI & Afton Alps, MN
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vail Resorts buying Mt. Brighton, MI & Afton Alps, MN

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 

http://www.startribune.com/local/east/182436811.html?refer=y

 

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/12/06/vail-buys-midwest-ski-areas-minnesota-michigan/7699/

 

Interesting.  Vail Resorts is really trying to take over the skiing universe.  I always figured the larger areas would try to start a "farm team" as there is a lot of potential future business in these local ski areas.

 

Not all of us grow-up in Colorado or spend our first day on snow out in the big mountains.  Many of us for our first run in back on some middle school ski trip.

 

I don't think we will be seeing slopeside ski-in/ski-out timeshares, 4-star restaurants, and heated gondolas at these places.

post #2 of 37

I heard they were looking at Kirkwood, Mammoth and Snow Summit as well

post #3 of 37

Interesting indeed.  I grew up Skiing at Afton.  Haven't skiied it in years as I have left the Twin Cities but it will be interesting to see what they change.

post #4 of 37

jeffc7, Vail Resorts owns Kirkwood.  They also own a slew of retail stores that cross-sell their resorts (e.g, Any Mountain, Breeze, Heavenly Sports, Keystone Sports, Bicycle Village, O2 Gear Shop, Mountain Sports Outlets, Aspen Sports, Telluride Sports, Rent Bikes. Peak Sports, Vail Sports, a couple fly fishing shops and a whole lot more).  Between the retail, the mountains and the real estate, there is a lot of cross-selling going on.  More importantly, they have the cash flow to ride out a bad season or two.  A lot of mountains do not and will continue to sell out to VR as a result.  VR will make these mountains more efficient, and convince locals to travel to other VR properties through their season passes. Is VR the Evil Empire?  Not if they make things better for the skiers.  IMHO they are improving operations with all their acquisitions.

 

So you have a public company that does over a billion dollars in revenue that will sell you skis and boots, sell you lift tickets to their mountains, sell you bikes and golf clubs so you can rent some more rooms on their mountains in the summer and dine their, too.  It is an interesting business model, isn't it?


Edited by quant2325 - 12/7/12 at 12:13am
post #5 of 37

As near as I can tell, the business model is to get every skier in North America to buy an Epic pass by having a Vail resort somewhere nearby.  This will generate lots of income, and since there's always room for one more skier on the hill it doesn't actually cost them very much.  Then, when it comes time to book the pricey vacation, all those Epic pass holders will go to a Vail resort where the lift tickets are already paid for and spend $$$ on lodging and other amenities.

 

Being able to use the Epic pass locally may be just enough to tip the balance between planning a vacation at a Vail resort and somewhere else.

post #6 of 37

Perhaps Hoigarrds will start carrying Bogner?

 

th_dunno-1[1].gif

post #7 of 37
I went to Mt. Brighton once while I was at the University of Michigan (It's just 30 miles north of Ann Arbor) and slipped and slid my way around on the icy mound. I watched some hapless individual end up in the creek at the bottom of the hill and decided I'd seen enough of Mt. Brighton. Back in the days of the Detroit Free Press Ski School, they did a ton of business with busloads of Detroiters. I think they raised the hill some by moving a bunch of dirt a while back. Maybe went from 100 feet of vertical to 130!!

I'm wondering if the two places weren't owned by the same folks. Hard to picture a $20 million value. Wasn't Kirkwood just $18 million? You could put dozens of the two Midwest spots into Kirkwood.
post #8 of 37

Afton is hands down the best terrain within 20 miles of Minneapolis.  But, that ain't saying much, I doubt they're over 400' of vert top to the end of the parking lot.. 

post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Afton is hands down the best terrain within 20 miles of Minneapolis.  But, that ain't saying much, I doubt they're over 400' of vert top to the end of the parking lot.. 

I'm guessing it's closer to 300.

post #10 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestPete View Post

I'm guessing it's closer to 300.

Just looked up Afton Alps -- they're saying 350.

post #11 of 37

This move makes a lot of sense as a way for VR to promote their big western destinations to people in the east who are occasional or beginning skiers.  Avid skiers already know about VR destinations, but the occasional skier will notice the upgrades to Afton & Brighton, as well as any advertising and special offers for the Western destinations.  

post #12 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

As near as I can tell, the business model is to get every skier in North America to buy an Epic pass by having a Vail resort somewhere nearby.  This will generate lots of income, and since there's always room for one more skier on the hill it doesn't actually cost them very much.  Then, when it comes time to book the pricey vacation, all those Epic pass holders will go to a Vail resort where the lift tickets are already paid for and spend $$$ on lodging and other amenities.

 

Being able to use the Epic pass locally may be just enough to tip the balance between planning a vacation at a Vail resort and somewhere else.

 

There's a lot of truth to this.  Michigan is third in the US in # of ski areas, so a "gateway" resort model makes sense.

I'm from Michigan and run into other Michigan skiers every trip out West.  I'm commenting on the model more than the price

of the aquisition.

 

Southeast Michigan has 4 small hills, all exactly the same but just a little different. Pretty good size population

within 2-3 hours drive.  

 

Brand loyalty..plus as Walt says the money flows a little easier when lift tix are already paid for.

post #13 of 37

I taught at Afton for 14 years and was amazed to see this this morning. After 16 years of telling people in Vermont I used to work at Afton I can already hear the response to this story by all who HEAR it.


" Vail bought Aspen?!"


After going through the ASC mess up close I've said for years that if the big resorts wish to expand they ought to be looking at small feeder areas rather then other "bigs".

 

 

The place I first learned to ski had about 125 vertical so when I got to Aftons (then) 300 it seemed big. Later earth moving brought it up to 350.

 

Kneale RE: Afton... Until the advent of the detachable quad Afton was in the top 10 for uphill capacity nationwide and a normal day would be well over a thousand skier visits. Lots of people live within a half hours drive. Being closer and lots less expensive (for tickets, lessons, rentals and lodging) then CO we constantly had bus groups from IA...the skiers at Afton and the shoppers going on to Mall of America. 

 

The Augustine family that owned Afton also owned Mount Kato in MN and Mt Titus in NY. I do not know if they are included in the sale or retained, or sold seperately, but I know Titus was on the market.  There is no connection to Brighton I'm aware of.  

post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

jeffc7, Vail Resorts owns Kirkwood.  They also own a slew of retail stores that cross-sell their resorts (e.g, Any Mountain, Breeze, Heavenly Sports, Keystone Sports, Bicycle Village, O2 Gear Shop, Mountain Sports Outlets, Aspen Sports, Telluride Sports, Rent Bikes. Peak Sports, Vail Sports, a couple fly fishing shops and a whole lot more).  Between the retail, the mountains and the real estate, there is a lot of cross-selling going on.  More importantly, they have the cash flow to ride out a bad season or two.  A lot of mountains do not and will continue to sell out to VR as a result.  VR will make these mountains more efficient, and convince locals to travel to other VR properties through their season passes. Is VR the Evil Empire?  Not if they make things better for the skiers.  IMHO they are improving operations with all their acquisitions.

 

So you have a public company that does over a billion dollars in revenue that will sell you skis and boots, sell you lift tickets to their mountains, sell you bikes and golf clubs so you can rent some more rooms on their mountains in the summer and dine their, too.  It is an interesting business model, isn't it?

Very interesting business model indeed. Cross-selling is working for Vail Resorts and they are aggressively pursuing this business model. However, my skepticism comes from the fact that Vail Resorts mostly provide low paying "service jobs" and that there might be lack of dedication to local community, environmental concerns and small business impact. 

 

Local community is looked upon as a cheap local labor force to enrich corporation. I am curios to see how many decent paying jobs with health benefits and retirement benefits Vail Resorts is able to provide to their employees?

 

Environmental concerns are pushed aside quite often in these type of operations just because their business model is primarily based on quick turnaround of real estate assets. Build now, sell now and worry about the impact later. Local regulations ... Politicians are open to "negotiations".

 

It is very hard for  small business to operate in this environment, small business guys are simply pushed out. Try getting reasonable lease on property to open a restaurant. I can give you few personal examples ...

Monopolistic approach to business is simply outdated and creates more headaches in the long run. These types of corporations do not care about the long run - their immediate concern is being in black in this fiscal year.

 

This might lead me to another thread discussion, about Powder Mountain being taken over by some "Summit Group". Little I know about these guys (?)  - this might be a good idea and might lead to new way of operating ski resort and at the same time being "kind" to the environment. I hope that I am not wrong, I just want to be optimistic and hope that "new approach" companies involved in operating ski resorts would sprout and show us the way to environmentally sustainable, socially reasonable and community involved way of running business. And still manage to be profitable for their investors !!!

post #15 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

As near as I can tell, the business model is to get every skier in North America to buy an Epic pass by having a Vail resort somewhere nearby.  This will generate lots of income, and since there's always room for one more skier on the hill it doesn't actually cost them very much.  Then, when it comes time to book the pricey vacation, all those Epic pass holders will go to a Vail resort where the lift tickets are already paid for and spend $$$ on lodging and other amenities.

 

Being able to use the Epic pass locally may be just enough to tip the balance between planning a vacation at a Vail resort and somewhere else.

 

This makes sense.  And it is also a good reason why the Sherman anti-trust act should be brought against Vail again. First time is when they were allowed to buy Keystone and Breck (a/k/a their principal competition) in 1997 with the anti-trust "concession" being that they had to sell Arapahoe Basin out of the deal.

 

This isn't Vail's first rodeo at buying small, local ski areas.  They bought Meadow Mountain in Minturn for the sole purpose of shutting it down and eliminating competition.  http://www.coloradoskihistory.com/lost/meadow.html

 

They also purchased Broadmoor in the late 1980's, and (you guessed it) shut it down when they weren't able to sell. However, that was was probably more a failed attempt of the feeder strategy than plain anti-competition.

http://www.coloradoskihistory.com/lost/broadmoor.html

 

Still, it wouldn't give me warm fuzzies to have Vail buy my home area. Their history, both in operating mountains and catering to actual skiing rather than selling boxes at the base of the lifts, is very, very poor.

post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post Is VR the Evil Empire?  Not if they make things better for the skiers.

 

 

And this is the heart of it. I think Vail has shown that they are perfectly willing to undercut their ski experience (and by this I mean the day skier that makes the bulk of their ski visits) to make more revenue by non-skiing activities, primarily real estate.

 

If this wasn't the case, at some point in the past 20 years, they would have said:

 

"gee, the parking at Vail is getting out of hand. We need to stop building condos and make sure we have adequate parking."

 

Or

 

"You know, forcing people to trudge their gear 1/2 mile through the faux Swiss Village at Vail is really pissing people off. Whatever we do, we should make sure we don't make the exact same mistake at Keystone."

post #17 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post

As near as I can tell, the business model is to get every skier in North America to buy an Epic pass by having a Vail resort somewhere nearby.  This will generate lots of income, and since there's always room for one more skier on the hill it doesn't actually cost them very much.  Then, when it comes time to book the pricey vacation, all those Epic pass holders will go to a Vail resort where the lift tickets are already paid for and spend $$$ on lodging and other amenities.

 

Being able to use the Epic pass locally may be just enough to tip the balance between planning a vacation at a Vail resort and somewhere else.

 

This makes sense.  And it is also a good reason why the Sherman anti-trust act should be brought against Vail again. First time is when they were allowed to buy Keystone and Breck (a/k/a their principal competition) in 1997 with the anti-trust "concession" being that they had to sell Arapahoe Basin out of the deal.

 

This isn't Vail's first rodeo at buying small, local ski areas.  They bought Meadow Mountain in Minturn for the sole purpose of shutting it down and eliminating competition.  http://www.coloradoskihistory.com/lost/meadow.html

 

They also purchased Broadmoor in the late 1980's, and (you guessed it) shut it down when they weren't able to sell. However, that was was probably more a failed attempt of the feeder strategy than plain anti-competition.

http://www.coloradoskihistory.com/lost/broadmoor.html

 

Still, it wouldn't give me warm fuzzies to have Vail buy my home area. Their history, both in operating mountains and catering to actual skiing rather than selling boxes at the base of the lifts, is very, very poor.

 

I think the anti-trust thing then was because they were buying so many areas in a close geographical area, thus buying up the direct competition. The smaller resorts are spread out enough over the country they are not really direct competition. Despite owning two more ski areas they still are far from having a monopoly on ski areas so I highly doubt anti-trust legislation would come up over these purchases. 

post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

And this is the heart of it. I think Vail has shown that they are perfectly willing to undercut their ski experience (and by this I mean the day skier that makes the bulk of their ski visits) to make more revenue by non-skiing activities, primarily real estate....

 

I'm coming up blank with how they might effectively do this at Brighton. It's a small property; along with the hill there's a golf course (which I've not played but those who have say it's pretty good) and not much else. In the current Michigan market it'd be silly to think that you could parcel out the property for development, and that's not likely to change for quite a while.  Brighton advertises 230' (to me it looks more like 150), and someone looking to spend serious money on a ski trip in MI will head up north no matter how nice they fix up any of the places downstate. It'd be stupid to put in ski in/out rooms there, even if you didn't have to tear up the golf course to do it (which you would).

 

Their stated intent to use it as a feeder for the other resorts sounds plausible to me. Brighton's been getting long in the tooth for many years, I've lost count of the number of people who've told me that that's the reason they drive an extra 20  to 40 minutes to the other local hills (but they use terms more colorful than "long in the tooth"). It's been on the market for a number of years and no doubt they're paying a LOT less than the $16 mil the owner was reportedly asking for three years ago. Repairs to the physical plant, a decent facelift, and a revamp of the restaurant and snack bar would probably bring a lot of folks back for a look even without the Vail name, and once in the door you have a chance of increasing your share of the folks heading west. The SE Michigan market is not small.

 

I'm particularly interested in what new ownership means for the patrol. More will be revealed.


Edited by chilehed - 12/8/12 at 11:11am
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylrwnzl View Post

 

I think the anti-trust thing then was because they were buying so many areas in a close geographical area, thus buying up the direct competition. The smaller resorts are spread out enough over the country they are not really direct competition. Despite owning two more ski areas they still are far from having a monopoly on ski areas so I highly doubt anti-trust legislation would come up over these purchases. 

 

But they are buying up the small resorts to lock in those skiers for their trips West and keeping them away from their Western competitors. Basically, you are the top of the market, so you buy the bottom of the market to squeeze out the middle (the destination resorts that don't have the free money to buy up feeder areas, such as, say Alta, most of the PNW places, etc.)

 

It's a much less blatant activity than buying up your principal competition between you and Denver, and I'm certainly not sure that it is enough in itself to warrant anti-trust intervention (and I'm positive they would just be allowed to throw money at the ruling until it went their way anyways).  Still, Vail has a long history of being allowed to buy up competition or act in non-competitive ways, and I would love them getting more scrutiny over it before a lot of the 2nd tier resorts close up shop and vail has effective monopoly power over the rest of the industry.

post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by chilehed View Post

 

I'm coming up blank with how they might effectively do this at Brighton. It's a small property; along with the hill there's a golf course (which I've not played but those who have say it's pretty good) and not much else. In the current Michigan market it'd be silly to think that you could parcel out the property for development, and that's not likely to change for quite a while.  Brighton advertises 230' (to me it looks more like 150), and someone looking to spend serious money on a ski trip in MI will head up north no matter how nice they fix up any of the places downstate. It'd be stupid to put in ski in/out rooms there, even if you didn't have to tear up the golf course to do it (which you would).

 

Their stated intent to use it as a feeder for the other resorts sounds plausible to me. Brighton's been getting long in the tooth for many years, I've lost count of the number of people who've told me that that's the reason they drive an extra 20  to 40 minutes to the other local hills (but they use terms more colorful than "long in the tooth"). It's been on the market for a number of years and no doubt they're paying a LOT less than the $16 mil the owner was reportedly asking for three years ago. Repairs to the physical plant, a decent facelift, and a revamp of the restaurant and snack bar would probably bring a lot of folks back for a look even without the Vail name, and once in the door you have a chance of increasing your share of the folks heading west. The SE Michigan market is not small.

 

I'm particularly interested in what new ownership means for the patrol. More will be revealed.

 

I'm not saying its possible to turn Brighton into a destination resort, or that Vail plans to build 30,000 condos there. But for those thinking that Vail will improve the skiing experience, don't count on it- they aren't a skiing company.  They are a resort development company that just happens to think that running ski areas is a good way to pump up the price of real estate.

post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

Very interesting business model indeed. Cross-selling is working for Vail Resorts and they are aggressively pursuing this business model. However, my skepticism comes from the fact that Vail Resorts mostly provide low paying "service jobs" and that there might be lack of dedication to local community, environmental concerns and small business impact. 

 

Local community is looked upon as a cheap local labor force to enrich corporation. I am curios to see how many decent paying jobs with health benefits and retirement benefits Vail Resorts is able to provide to their employees?

 

Environmental concerns are pushed aside quite often in these type of operations just because their business model is primarily based on quick turnaround of real estate assets. Build now, sell now and worry about the impact later. Local regulations ... Politicians are open to "negotiations".

 

It is very hard for  small business to operate in this environment, small business guys are simply pushed out. Try getting reasonable lease on property to open a restaurant. I can give you few personal examples ...

Monopolistic approach to business is simply outdated and creates more headaches in the long run. These types of corporations do not care about the long run - their immediate concern is being in black in this fiscal year.

 

This might lead me to another thread discussion, about Powder Mountain being taken over by some "Summit Group". Little I know about these guys (?)  - this might be a good idea and might lead to new way of operating ski resort and at the same time being "kind" to the environment. I hope that I am not wrong, I just want to be optimistic and hope that "new approach" companies involved in operating ski resorts would sprout and show us the way to environmentally sustainable, socially reasonable and community involved way of running business. And still manage to be profitable for their investors !!!


Vail, to their credit, does provide significant health insurance benefits. If they didn't provide the jobs--low paying or not--someone else would or no one else would.   Their size (IMHO) does indeed have a benefit over the "little guys" you mention, from insurance costs to buying power.  Their emphasis on summer activities and real estate enhances the customer experience and adds more jobs.  So far the service I receive at a VR mountain isn't nearly as good as a Deer Valley or Canyons (similar to the difference between Disney and Universal). The service is pretty good, just not over-the-top. 

 

Summit Series is different.  It is not a roll-up.  Summit Series wants to make Pow Mow their "Base Camp."  I wonder if they will privatize it...
 

post #22 of 37

Isn't Mt. Brighton where the beginning of the movie "ASPEN EXTREME" took place?

post #23 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post


Vail, to their credit, does provide significant health insurance benefits.
 

VR also gave, iirc, a 2% wage increase in 2009 (unlike the slash and burn beancounters at other places ) and iirc they didn't turf employees out onto the street like other resorts did in 2010/11.

post #24 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by anachronism View Post

I'm not saying its possible to turn Brighton into a destination resort, or that Vail plans to build 30,000 condos there. But for those thinking that Vail will improve the skiing experience, don't count on it- they aren't a skiing company.  They are a resort development company that just happens to think that running ski areas is a good way to pump up the price of real estate.

 

I understand that, but SE MI is not a likely area to develop a resort and while it's possible that Vail's snapping up additional local real estate AFAIK they're not. Using Mt. Brighton as a feeder is the most plausible reason for them to buy it, and the skiing experience is the only winter time asset it has. The clientel is exclusively locals out for the day, and there are three other hills that are just as easy to get to. I know ten or twenty of their alienated customers, and improving the skiing experience is the only way the owners will get them to return.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MidwestPete View Post

Isn't Mt. Brighton where the beginning of the movie "ASPEN EXTREME" took place?

 

Yes.

post #25 of 37
Both Afton Alps, which happens to be one of the most profitable ski areas in the country, and Mt. Brighton are getting close to $450 for a single adult season pass. Not a biggie to consider that all those regulars at each place, and there are thousands of them, who like to ski in the west will fork out another couple hundred to get an Epic Pass and be able to ski without additional lift cost in either Colorado or California/Nevada.

While we did experience a slight pay cut when the economy went to pot, nobody was laid off. They restored the pay the next season and are giving raises this year. I received a 3.5 per cent increase for this season. Vail Resorts offers good benefits in health insurance and makes it possible for seasonal employees to continue their insurances fairly reasonably. They permit easy insurance bridging between seasons for those who work both summer and winter but not continuously.

Vail Resorts recently decided to sell off its non-skiing-related resort operations. The investments the company makes in facilities maintenance and improvements is tremendous. I don't think it's correct to say it is not a skiing company.
post #26 of 37

I am glad to learn that Vail Resorts offers generous benefits package to some of their employees, kudos to them for that. My point is simply this: it is not automatic improvement when large corporation takes over some resort. From purely consumer point of view (skiers) improvements are noticeable and immediate, either through reduced pass price and/or improvements to facilities and services. But I also tend to see ski resorts as a place of employment for many people, and although Vail Resorts do provide jobs to local community, those jobs are often part-time (seasonal) and with limited access to Health Care benefits. Often times, new owner wants "fresh start" and initially people are laid off. Sometimes acquisition of smaller areas also bring improvement to wages and benefits and work conditions in general. And most of those jobs are low-paid, people have to work multiple jobs to support families. Of course, there are some good paying jobs as well.

Now, some of you insiders please explain this to me and I am honestly looking for answer to this: all those "lifties" from  South America, Europe, are they getting  any of those health benefits, are they getting 401k? If yes, with unemployment being where it is, why are people staying away from those great jobs? Nevada has highest unemployment in the country, and yet large employer up the hill has to bring seasonal workers from South America? I am serious here, it really baffles me.

IMHO, every employee of ski resort, regardless of position should make good "living wage" (at least $15 hourly)with full benefits, 4 weeks paid vacation,

PTO, pet benefits etc. Just raise the price of real estate to cover those costs. 

And it would be great if Vail Resorts buys up all of North America resorts and we can ski "Epic North America Pass" for $600 !!!

post #27 of 37
There aren't any non-citizen South American lifties in Breck, and I doubt there are any at other Vail properties. Vail stopped asking for visas for seasonal/temporary workers several years ago. Lots of Spanish spoken among the housekeeping staff, but most of those are year-around residents. I don't know for certain, but my guess is they make as much as housekeepers in any other tourist economy setting in the country. I see more non-native workers in the local Walmart by percentage than on the Vail properties.
post #28 of 37

I have a season pass to Afton Alps, as I live so close in Saint Paul, MN.  I grew up ski racing in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul area.  Most die hard skiers/boarders in the area do make trips to Colorado.  However, there is absolutely no loyalty.  I myself, made over a dozen trips to Colorado resorts, before I visited the same one twice...I never had reason to. 

 

Vail is going to give the people in the Twin Cities area reason to be loyal.  They will make their money back in a matter of years.  Any changes they make to the ski area will help the whole process, but let's not forget Afton Alps is already a cash cow.  It's amazing on a weekend how many people are there....it's so busy, it's actually not worth it.  You would think people thought they were at Steamboat. 

 

As others have stated, some housing will certainly be in the future.  There is really nothing in the area to accommodate out of towers, or people that want to make a weekend of it... like a true resort.  Give people a taste, and they'll be hungry to spend their money out west. 

 

I'm all for the change, however I hope Vail isn't going to become the Walmart of Alpine...that will be no good either. 

 

My sister who lives in Colorado seems to buy a different pass every year.  The locals have it good, as there is so much to choose from.  She pays less for her pass to REAL mountains.

post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by goranmilos View Post

I

IMHO, every employee of ski resort, regardless of position should make good "living wage" (at least $15 hourly)with full benefits, 4 weeks paid vacation,

PTO, pet benefits etc. Just raise the price of real estate to cover those costs. 

And it would be great if Vail Resorts buys up all of North America resorts and we can ski "Epic North America Pass" for $600 !!!

The economic ignorance displayed in this post is mind boggling.....why only $15 an hour...if we are going to ask the wish fairy for the economically impossible let's just pay them all like NFL super stars.  We'll give them all contracts like Peyton Manning he gets a lot more than 4 weeks of vacation and substantially more than 15 an hour so why not??

 

Do you actually believe that Vail Resorts sets the prices of their real estate?  Real estate prices in the market are set by the buyers and what they are willing and able to pay.....no one forces them to buy real estate at some predetermined price.

 

Sorry end thread hijacknonono2.gif

post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneale Brownson View Post

There aren't any non-citizen South American lifties in Breck, and I doubt there are any at other Vail properties. Vail stopped asking for visas for seasonal/temporary workers several years ago. Lots of Spanish spoken among the housekeeping staff, but most of those are year-around residents. I don't know for certain, but my guess is they make as much as housekeepers in any other tourist economy setting in the country. I see more non-native workers in the local Walmart by percentage than on the Vail properties.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22056298/colorado-ski-resorts-keep-staff-levels-steady

 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18657539

 

Student J1 visas are still issued, just not the Hs like in past years; those regulations changed.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Vail Resorts buying Mt. Brighton, MI & Afton Alps, MN