or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Traxx- Uber Ski Instructor app, would you use it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Traxx- Uber Ski Instructor app, would you use it?

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 

http://www.virginmediabusiness.co.uk/pitch-to-rich/new-things/traxx/

 

TRAXX

Revolutionising ski schools- Traxx is an app that connects ski instructors to clients in a simple, hassle-free way. It will allow customers to choose their instructor directly and ensure that they can pick the instructor that is right for them and their ability – whenever and wherever they like. Customers get a cheaper, easier and more bespoke learning experience, while instructors work when they like, can access a much wider pool of clients and will have significantly higher earning potential. It’s time that customers get more input into who they want as their instructor, and it’s time that instructors gets paid fairly for their work. We are here to make this a reality. We have developers lined up and ready to go but need both funding and business support to get this to the next stage of the process. This is where you can help! Think about your next winter holiday. Think about Traxx

- SEE MORE AT: HTTP://WWW.VIRGINMEDIABUSINESS.CO.UK/PITCH-TO-RICH/NEW-THINGS/TRAXX/#STHASH.L8DKT28O.HZ37TCDP.DPUF

 

 

or http://www.skischoolapp.com/

post #2 of 24

What countries does the app apply to?

post #3 of 24

May have a hard time getting resorts to allow it..unlike city streets, ski resorts are not public property for the most part.

post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott43 View Post
 

May have a hard time getting resorts to allow it..unlike city streets, ski resorts are not public property for the most part.

 

Well, not exactly.

 

Most ski resorts (in the West of the US at least) are public property -- usually National Forest Service land. However during the months of their lease they have exclusive vending rights to sell goods and services within the leased area. Usually its just the improvements on the land (buildings, chairlifts) that are private property. 

 

So if they don't approve of you breaking their monopoly on ski instruction (very unlikely) it will be illegal to use such applications. 

post #5 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

 

Well, not exactly.

 

Most ski resorts (in the West of the US at least) are public property -- usually National Forest Service land. However during the months of their lease they have exclusive vending rights to sell goods and services within the leased area. Usually its just the improvements on the land (buildings, chairlifts) that are private property. 

 

So if they don't approve of you breaking their monopoly on ski instruction (very unlikely) it will be illegal to use such applications. 


I do stand corrected. :)

post #6 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

 

Well, not exactly.

 

Most ski resorts (in the West of the US at least) are public property -- usually National Forest Service land. However during the months of their lease they have exclusive vending rights to sell goods and services within the leased area. Usually its just the improvements on the land (buildings, chairlifts) that are private property. 

 

So if they don't approve of you breaking their monopoly on ski instruction (very unlikely) it will be illegal to use such applications. 

Maybe that is what cities should do to combat Uber- issue a single long term permit to only 1 company to run all taxi type services.  

post #7 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
 

Maybe that is what cities should do to combat Uber- issue a single long term permit to only 1 company to run all taxi type services.  

 

In fact this is how many cities historically dealt with taxi services. They'd heavily limit permits / tokens etc so only a few players effectively had control of the market.

 

Uber entered by classifying itself as a car/ride-sharing service instead of a taxi service. 

post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

 

In fact this is how many cities historically dealt with taxi services. They'd heavily limit permits / tokens etc so only a few players effectively had control of the market.

 

Uber entered by classifying itself as a car/ride-sharing service instead of a taxi service. 


Which is not what it is. It's a taxi service.  Here in Toronto we have taxi licenses and they get traded/passed down/sold.  But the point is, we felt the need to license them for whatever reason.  So the question is, do you open the market and let market forces run it?  Or do you stick with the licensing, and presumably accept fare controls, safety measures and proper insurance that comes with that?  You can't have it both ways.  People get fooled by the technology, either willfully or blindly.  It's no different than taking an ad out in a paper and saying you're offering rides for money.  The fact you can do it on a phone is novel but not fundamentally different.

 

 

post #9 of 24

Uber is all good unless you are a taxi driver or medalllion owner.

 

What it really is, it's using IT to take the entry barriers out of the taxi industry.  How did that work out for writers and musicians? Or the whole newspaper and publishing industries?  

 

I was all for this stuff until one day I was using google to find some energy data for a client (and making serious bank doing it) and I inadvertently googled up an article "How to be an energy expert using google".

 

Are you sure they are not coming after your job?

 

BK

post #10 of 24

Interesting, software-as-a-service, TRAXX is looking for funding.

 

The SkiSchool App is a different thing clearly, that is an app with video lessons, some sort of self-analysis capability via self-video etc.

 

Coincidentally, a few weeks ago, another group which is already off the ground also posted asking for input. Idea seems interesting on all fronts but success will depend on ski instructors (and they should be ski instructors or certified guides) uptake and demand from skiers. The other thread was this one. Interesting to read the take of professionals in the field. These guys, called Team Ongosa  are casting a far wider net to mountaineering, surfing ...anyway, it was here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/142037/have-you-ever-used-an-instructor#post_1898686

 

I can see the market and will be interesting to see how it works out in the USA, given ownership of ski areas being private for the most part. Canada too. Time will tell.

post #11 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 

Uber is all good unless you are a taxi driver or medalllion owner.

 

What it really is, it's using IT to take the entry barriers out of the taxi industry.  How did that work out for writers and musicians? Or the whole newspaper and publishing industries?  

 

I was all for this stuff until one day I was using google to find some energy data for a client (and making serious bank doing it) and I inadvertently googled up an article "How to be an energy expert using google".

 

Are you sure they are not coming after your job?

 

BK

I definitely think lesson prices would go down if you had unfettered competition to offer instruction.  In theory, this should hurt the earning ability of ski instructors, but right now all the excess earning ability of ski instructors due to limited competition is going to the resorts AND the resorts are able to artificially suppress wages since they are the only employer in the area.  If instructors were benefiting by the lack of a free market, then I think you would have a valid point that they should worry about the effects of a more open market, but right now few instructors are getting the benefits of a non-competitive market.

 

With that said, I'll partially make your point for you- if the wages of ski instructors doubled, there would be more demand to be a ski instructor.  I personally know a lot of good instructors who no longer teach because they had a to get a real job to pay the bills.  With earning potential, some of them would come back to instructing.  In my mind, this might make it somewhat harder for inexperienced and/or bad instructors to find work, but I think good/experienced instructors will benefit more from the increased revenue than they would be harmed by the competition for students/jobs.  

 

Right now, some resorts charge $150-$200+ per hour of private lessons while paying the instructors who teach those lessons $10 to $25/hr. Where do you think prices for lessons would settle if competition was allowed?

 

The most likely way that I could see instructors getting hurt is that competition might encourage people to take shorter lessons by offering less than full day lessons at more competitive prices.  i.e. at some resorts it is close to $700 for a 3 hour lesson while a full day is only another couple of 100.  With this structure, many clients opt to go the full day as it seems like better value.  With more competition, I would expect to see much better prices for hourly and half day products which could encourage some to take shorter lessons.  OTOH, it might also encourage some who don't take lessons to give it a try.

post #12 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustyfog View Post
 

Interesting, software-as-a-service, TRAXX is looking for funding.

 

The SkiSchool App is a different thing clearly, that is an app with video lessons, some sort of self-analysis capability via self-video etc.

 

Coincidentally, a few weeks ago, another group which is already off the ground also posted asking for input. Idea seems interesting on all fronts but success will depend on ski instructors (and they should be ski instructors or certified guides) uptake and demand from skiers. The other thread was this one. Interesting to read the take of professionals in the field. These guys, called Team Ongosa  are casting a far wider net to mountaineering, surfing ...anyway, it was here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/142037/have-you-ever-used-an-instructor#post_1898686

 

I can see the market and will be interesting to see how it works out in the USA, given ownership of ski areas being private for the most part. Canada too. Time will tell.

Thanks for this.  To clarify, in the Western US at least, most ski areas have a "non-exclusive" permit to use public land to operate.  Normally, these are long term (30 or 40 years) and end up being given to a single entity.

post #13 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustyfog View Post
 

Interesting, software-as-a-service, TRAXX is looking for funding.

 

The SkiSchool App is a different thing clearly, that is an app with video lessons, some sort of self-analysis capability via self-video etc.

 

Coincidentally, a few weeks ago, another group which is already off the ground also posted asking for input. Idea seems interesting on all fronts but success will depend on ski instructors (and they should be ski instructors or certified guides) uptake and demand from skiers. The other thread was this one. Interesting to read the take of professionals in the field. These guys, called Team Ongosa  are casting a far wider net to mountaineering, surfing ...anyway, it was here:

http://www.epicski.com/t/142037/have-you-ever-used-an-instructor#post_1898686

 

I can see the market and will be interesting to see how it works out in the USA, given ownership of ski areas being private for the most part. Canada too. Time will tell.

Thanks for this.  To clarify, in the Western US at least, most ski areas have a "non-exclusive" permit to use public land to operate.  Normally, these are long term (30 or 40 years) and end up being given to a single entity.

It doesn't really matter whether the ski area is on private land or Forest Service land.  You can't run a viable ski school without access to the lifts and base lodge, and you can't get that without the permission of the ski area management. There are plenty of expert level ski schools (Arc to Arc, NASTC, etc) that operate with permission all over the country.  Ski tour operators do learn to ski lessons with permission in some places.  The rest of the market is either the beginner lesson or small kids who can't be left alone at the mountain.  There's really no area where an independent can compete, except at the very highest level like Arc to Arc.

 

An app that let you hook up with clients and and give coaching without permission might work, but you would still be trespassing.  If that business got big, they would use the app to trap you and prosecute you.  Uber works because everybody but taxi owners loves it.  There are a lot of Uber users and they all vote so the city has a hard time cracking down on it.  I'm thinking ski area owners would be pretty harsh with ski instructors that hurt their business, and the local judges would back them up.

 

BK

post #14 of 24

Now I'm sure the leases don't all look exactly like this, but it's a good guide to the rights (and their limitations) of US ski operators in NFS land: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/recreation/special-use/forms/new-forms/fs-2700-5b.pdf

 

 

Two most interesting bits for this discussion: 

"E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized."

 

So for an app like this to work in the US you'd probably need NFS permit. However a permit to give lessons on NFS land would get fought tooth and nail as such a permit would likely "materially interfere with the rights and privileges..." bit. 

 

"F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer"

 

Access to the area shall remain open, but this doesn't mean you're allowed to profit off it. In any case, you could not be found for trespassing on the land itself unless it was closed with NFS approval. 

post #15 of 24
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post

 

Uber works because everybody but taxi owners loves it.  There are a lot of Uber users and they all vote so the city has a hard time cracking down on it.

 

BK

 

We had a subway outage here and people were trying to book Uber rides and were shocked that prices were 3x what they normally were.  So they want Uber when it works for them but not when it doesn't.  Which is presumably why taxis got licensed in the first place, so people don't get ripped off or injured without insurance and there is a steady business environment in which a class of people can make a steady living without the boom and bust cycle.  I would like to know how many Uber drivers have advised their insurance companies they're running a commercial enterprise from their vehicle.  I don't care much one way or the other, instructors or cabbies, just don't handcuff one or the other. And don't pretend that a fancy new app replaces basic laws..like somehow P2P file sharing should be legal because it's easy. 

post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

Now I'm sure the leases don't all look exactly like this, but it's a good guide to the rights (and their limitations) of US ski operators in NFS land: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/recreation/special-use/forms/new-forms/fs-2700-5b.pdf

 

 

Two most interesting bits for this discussion: 

"E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized."

 

So for an app like this to work in the US you'd probably need NFS permit. However a permit to give lessons on NFS land would get fought tooth and nail as such a permit would likely "materially interfere with the rights and privileges..." bit. 

 

"F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer"

 

Access to the area shall remain open, but this doesn't mean you're allowed to profit off it. In any case, you could not be found for trespassing on the land itself unless it was closed with NFS approval. 

You are trespassing if you are on private land without permission.  On Forest Service land, you are trespassing if you use 'authorized structures and developments" like the base lodge or lifts.  If you are conducting business on Forest Service land without a lease other permit, you are violating the law.

There's not much space there for a private ski school that does not have the permission of the ski area management, even if it had a Forest Service permit.

 

BK

post #17 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 

You are trespassing if you are on private land without permission.  On Forest Service land, you are trespassing if you use 'authorized structures and developments" like the base lodge or lifts.  If you are conducting business on Forest Service land without a lease other permit, you are violating the law.

There's not much space there for a private ski school that does not have the permission of the ski area management, even if it had a Forest Service permit.

 

BK

 

Yep -- if you use lodges or lifts you're in trouble. My point was that the land is not private so you can't be trespassing by skiing or wandering around a ski resort that is on NFS land--unless the NFS has issued the closure. (Which they often do for things like lift installation, grooming, grading/tree clearing etc.) The improvements upon the land (lifts, lodges, warming huts, bathrooms etc) are private -- so you can certainly trespass there. 

 

And yes, no permit == no biz on NFS land. 

 

The chances of an app like this getting a permit that covers all instructors that use it, at all areas, is effectively zero -- so all this is sort of a moot point.

 

Sort of too bad, as I would welcome more variety in the options for advanced instruction at my main hill. Even if I'm not convinced that this would be some panacea. 

post #18 of 24

I'm neither for nor against, but:

 

Many resorts are on public land as others have mentioned

 

Many Ski areas already allow privately owned and operated Ski Schools in addition to their own - for a fee

 

Buy a season pass or lift ticket and you can use lifts and lodge - although giving unauthorized lessons for profit and they can pull your ticket

 

It wasn't long ago that ski resorts on public NFS lands would kick out backcountry skiers, snowshoers, etc.   That public land battle was fought in court and now  resorts can only keep non-paying  people out if they are putting themselves or others in harms way (skinning up the middle of open runs, etc). 

 

Uber challenged the status quo in taxi service, and now they are a global company valued at over $50 Billion - that buys a lot of influence.

 

I was in a taxi a few weeks back and asked the taxi driver what he thought about Uber and all the taxi driver protests - he said he did have complaints about Uber  'as a taxi driver', but that when he was off the clock from the taxi company, he drove his own car as an Uber driver - go figure.

 

It's often a good thing to challenge the status quo - it's not a black and white issue - changes could be better for many in the long run,including  students, instructors, ski resorts. Those that adapt with the times can still profit, those that fight change risk  ending up on the loosing side.

post #19 of 24
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmeb View Post
 

Now I'm sure the leases don't all look exactly like this, but it's a good guide to the rights (and their limitations) of US ski operators in NFS land: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/recreation/special-use/forms/new-forms/fs-2700-5b.pdf

 

 

Two most interesting bits for this discussion: 

"E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized."

 

So for an app like this to work in the US you'd probably need NFS permit. However a permit to give lessons on NFS land would get fought tooth and nail as such a permit would likely "materially interfere with the rights and privileges..." bit. 

 

"F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer"

 

Access to the area shall remain open, but this doesn't mean you're allowed to profit off it. In any case, you could not be found for trespassing on the land itself unless it was closed with NFS approval. 

Not everyone thinks allowing competition is material interference with that business http://thesandtrap.com/t/77497/golf-lessons-is-competition-material-interference

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 

 

There's not much space there for a private ski school that does not have the permission of the ski area management, even if it had a Forest Service permit.

 

BK

The USFS sets the terms of the lease and reserves the right to change them for the public good.  It is very feasible that the USFS could decide that the terms of the lease that is best for the public would allow for a competing ski school so long as they got a USFS permit and purchased lift tickets/season pass.  Alternatively, they could write the lease to require the Ski Area to allow outside ski school competition for a set fee.  

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer View Post
 

  Uber works because everybody but taxi owners loves it.  There are a lot of Uber users and they all vote so the city has a hard time cracking down on it.  I'm thinking ski area owners would be pretty harsh with ski instructors that hurt their business, and the local judges would back them up.

 

BK

My thinking is that everyone but the current owner of the ski school monopoly would benefit from competition- in the Vail Valley alone, it would give a chance for 2,000+ ski & snowboard instructors to be able to negotiate with multiple employers and it would give a chance for over 2 M daily skiers annually to compare ski school lesson prices.  With competition, it is likely that both these groups would have more $ in their pockets at the end of the day (via higher instructor compensation and lower lesson prices) which would likely benefit many Vail Valley businesses such as restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, movie theaters, rental properties, etc. 

post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
 

Not everyone thinks allowing competition is material interference with that business http://thesandtrap.com/t/77497/golf-lessons-is-competition-material-interference

 

The USFS sets the terms of the lease and reserves the right to change them for the public good.  It is very feasible that the USFS could decide that the terms of the lease that is best for the public would allow for a competing ski school so long as they got a USFS permit and purchased lift tickets/season pass.  Alternatively, they could write the lease to require the Ski Area to allow outside ski school competition for a set fee.  

My thinking is that everyone but the current owner of the ski school monopoly would benefit from competition :dunno - in the Vail Valley alone,  it would give a chance for 2,000+ ski & snowboard instructors to be able to negotiate with multiple employers and it would give a chance for over 2 M daily skiers annually to compare ski school lesson prices.  With competition, it is likely that both these groups would have more $ in their pockets at the end of the day (via higher instructor compensation and lower lesson prices) which would likely benefit many Vail Valley businesses such as restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, movie theaters, rental properties, etc. 

Thumbs Up Uber, Lyft, Get, Pager, AirBnB, VRBO, FreshDirect, Apt.com, On-site.com, Yourmechanic.com, KhanAcademy.com, IXL

 

Why not Ski Instruction ? Increase instructor pay :eek , increase skier visits :D

post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post

I definitely think lesson prices would go down if you had unfettered competition to offer instruction. 

What would unfettered competition look like? Concession schools are one form of competition , but concession schools have to pay resorts to operate and experience with concession schools (e.g Hunter/Snoqualmie) shows that lesson prices were not significantly different. Resorts could simply change their rules and allow anyone to teach on resort property for money. Private instructors would need to make their own arrangements to sign up customers. Let's assume that they would be successful enough by offering lessons at lower prices/higher quality that the resort ski school would need to reduce prices and/or lose volume. The resorts would need to replace the ski school profits lost through increased prices for lift tickets, rentals, food, lodging. Lower lesson prices would help to increase skier day volume. But this would be offset by lower skier day volume caused by higher prices for everything else. Which strategy is better for increasing skier volume? The only way to know for sure is to experiment. Consider that resorts have had years of experience tweaking their relative prices of lifts, lessons, rentals, food and lodging/real estate. One could make an argument that they already have years of experience running such experiments.

 

Of course if resorts had to allow unfettered competition for instruction, why not force them to allow unfettered competition for rentals and food? That could be easily done out of the parking lot. Maybe you could also have competition for lift tickets with private operators of snow machines and ATVs (hey that would be a faster uphill ride!).

 

Surely resort owners would not have to replace ski school profits "lost" to competition. All they'd have to do is tell their stock holders that their dividend checks will be a little smaller or just stop buying new Lamborghinis every year. Maybe they'd just make a little less snow, or groom less often, or cut out ski patrol, or used fixed grip chairs instead of a brand new high speed quad on their brand new "natural" terrain (who needs trees cut down and stumps and rocks cleared out to ski?).

 

Fettering competition always has its downsides, but sometimes the upsides are worth it. If unfettered competition is a superior business model, it will eventually win out. Government is not preventing this from happening.

post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
 
 

The USFS sets the terms of the lease and reserves the right to change them for the public good.  It is very feasible that the USFS could decide that the terms of the lease that is best for the public would allow for a competing ski school so long as they got a USFS permit and purchased lift tickets/season pass.  Alternatively, they could write the lease to require the Ski Area to allow outside ski school competition for a set fee.  

 

Years ago I talked with the USFS guy responsible for the ski areas in Colorado about ski area ski school competition. They are very willing to accept non-exclusive leases. Resorts are simply not willing to pay the rates they pay to the USFS without exclusive leases. The USFS is not willing to accept the rates they would have to take to make non-exclusive leases viable.

post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree30 View Post
 

My thinking is that everyone but the current owner of the ski school monopoly would benefit from competition- i

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 
Years ago I talked with the USFS guy responsible for the ski areas in Colorado about ski area ski school competition. They are very willing to accept non-exclusive leases. Resorts are simply not willing to pay the rates they pay to the USFS without exclusive leases. The USFS is not willing to accept the rates they would have to take to make non-exclusive leases viable.

That's the answer.  It really has nothing to do with USFS.  The North American ski business model almost everywhere is for the resort to monopolize everything within its boundaries. If you want competitive ski schools, you need to get the resort  out of the ski school business.

 

This is exactly analogous to the electric industry, which was a complete monopoly from the generating station to your meter.  In 1978, greater minds decided to allow competitive generation companies to provide wholesale power at market based rates.  It took almost 20 years, but in the end we learned that if there were monopoly utility generation and competitive generation on the same system, the monopoly would never allow the equal access to the transmission system that the competitor needed.

 

It would be the same with ski schools.  To compete, you would need equal access to the lodge and lifts, and an equal ability to package rental skis. All that is controlled by the resort owner, regardless of USFS.  The best you could hope for is that he would rent that to you, and he'd raise the rent until you were broke. That's essentially what's happening with the high end independent programs, except that the owners view  them as offering something that they can't provide themselves, so they let them survive.   

 

Instructor wages are not a very important issue to many people, not even to most instructors, but it's an example of the deterioration of wages in the low end of the labor market generally.  That's something the government should do something about.

 

BK

post #24 of 24
Thread Starter 

Interesting thoughts BK.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post
 

Years ago I talked with the USFS guy responsible for the ski areas in Colorado about ski area ski school competition. They are very willing to accept non-exclusive leases. Resorts are simply not willing to pay the rates they pay to the USFS without exclusive leases. The USFS is not willing to accept the rates they would have to take to make non-exclusive leases viable.

The current SUPs say they are "non-exclusive" but in reality, they are exclusive.  So is the rate being paid by the resorts for exclusive or non-exclusive use.  I'm pretty sure that ALL SKI RESORTS that operate on USFS land have the same rate terms (which is a % of revenue on a sliding scale) which was done by a law passed by congress https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/497c. That is similar to every restaurant having the same lease terms whether they are located in Omaha or NYC and I don't trust congress to be able to determine a fair market rate.  

 

If I was a ski resort operator, I know that in some areas I would be willing to make higher lease payments, while in others I wouldn't think it would be profitable to pay as much.  I highly doubt that USFS ski resort SUPs always reflect the market value of these "leases".

 

Here is an interesting article about VT ski area leases https://vtdigger.org/2015/01/20/ski-area-leases-state-land-badly-outdated-auditor-finds/ that shows that the VT politicians made a good deal for the ski resorts at the expense of the state tax payers.

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 › Traxx- Uber Ski Instructor app, would you use it?