34 replies to this topic

[Callao]

Emax, you must very well be the perfect man for your job--after all, if I remember right, your favorite way to get down the mountain is "sledding."

You've got a good point--let's find some way to make more year-round jobs.

[zeedotcom]

I was just having a discussion like this with a friend the other day. Due to the seasonal nature of business, the only real way to create a "year round" employment cycle is through employment agencies. Example: you work a Vail during the winter, and work at Disney during the summer. The problem is the excess travel, rates of pay, housing, etc. I recently went back to school, because I want ultimate job security, and don't want to be forced to work 80 hours a week when I'm 50 and not have anything resembling retirement.

Skiing is "glamorous" to a lot of people. I love getting out to ride. Most summer seasonal jobs tend to be more agricultural. Most people just plain don't want to do that.

The only reason that I have survived working ski industry jobs is a solid summer job. I bust my butt and make half of my yearly income in 3 or 4 months. Ski season is break even at best. The only reason that works here in the Midwest is that we have a lot of summer seasonal tourism jobs as well as some winter ones. There really isn't much going on in Vail in May from what I have seen. Or much in June/July from what I understand.

On a side note, Vail also owns the Teton Mountain Lodge or something like that in Teton Village at the base of Jackson. This provides them with some option to give employees year round options (though the staffing there versus the staffing at their big resorts is obviously less prominent.)

[Callao]

We're lucky in that regard here in Southern Utah. The place is absolutely inundated with tourists in the summer time--with Dixie National Forest, Cedar Breaks National Monument, Zion National Park, Bryce Canyon, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and Lake Powell. There are plenty of opportunities here for summer work for the hundreds of people employed at Brian Head. An employment agency, as you say, would really be helpful, and it would also work well in Southern Utah. But I have yet to see Brian Head do something like this. Maybe their new (and pretty amazing) HR guy could pull some strings.

[liftmech]

Callao, on Nov 5 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

Not bad! It probably doesn't work really well with positions like lift operators (are there any liability concerns with with volunteers?), but it's probably good for guides and such. Hey, can we attract a bunch of volunteers and oust half of the ski patrol?

Another expense which doesn't seem that great, is insurance, at 2.4%. I think that's mostly liability insurance (correct me if I'm wrong). However, I'm not sure that most liability insurance gives the resort full protection. Does anybody know about how resorts manage risk and liability?

Dino mentioned this already, but I'll glom on- there are many places that 'get by' on a core staff of a few patrollers and supplement that with many volunteers. Baker was one that I recall. We had maybe a dozen pro (read 'paid') patrollers who worked Monday through Friday (or slid over one weekend day for avy coverage). Saturday and Sunday we had virtually no 'pros' and two to three dozen middle-aged Bellingham and Vancouver white-collar types. Contrast that with Copper where we have thirty-five to forty full-time, paid staff and maybe only a dozen volunteers. It probably doesn't help the budget any that we require all of our patrollers to be at least EMT-certified. Not many EMTs will work for free.

I can't answer how full of coverage we have, but I know that risk and liability are managed through a lot of prevention (and, probably, CYA). From an employee standopint, we run classes on average of once a month on different safety issues. These range from electrical safety to fall protection to snowmobile skills. Many times one cannot go out to do something unless one is certified (such as snowmobiling). From the customer side, there are the standard disclaimers on the backs of day tickets and season passes alike. In Colorado there's the Skier Safety Act, which spells out in pretty good detail what skiers and resorts are responsible for. If an incident happens with a guest, there are reams of paperwork to be filled out to ensure that in the event of a court date all the resort's bases are covered. The biggest thing in risk management is, as far as I can tell, making the customer aware of the inherent risk our sport entails. This will only get tougher over time as people continue to become less responsible for themselves, but at least we're trying.

[Callao]

I know that this forum really harps on resort real estate being the dominating focus (read the string about Aspen, UT--a resort with a mere 1,300 foot vert--do you call that a ski resort?), but look at the profit margins for the large resorts (about 15%) as opposed to the other resorts (which average about 7%). I think it has a lot to do with the real estate. I think that if resorts want to increase their profit margins, and hence, be able to pay more for better staff.

[liftmech]

I disagree. Large resorts attract more people regardless of the amount and/or value of the real estate. For example, we're really a glorified day skier area, with relatively little in the way of real estate, but we still do pretty well. I don't think we're up to the 15% mentioned, but I'm sure we're over the 7% of a true day ski area. It's sort of a self-sustaining cycle; a large area can sell more tickets, then put that money into advertising to attract more people, which generates more sales, and so on.

[Lift Dinosaur]

I once worked for a pretty sharp owner who said, "I don't think the right approach is to minimize expenses. I try to maximize revenue."
Goes along with what liftmech is talking about.

Dino

[SkiBachelor]

I agree about that statement 100%, but there are times when you should cut costs. For example, if supplier B can save you $10 per part compared to supplier A, you should switch. This is how I'm looking at the issue, like insurance companies, resort supplies, etc.

[Callao]

Lift Dinosaur, on Nov 19 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

I once worked for a pretty sharp owner who said, "I don't think the right approach is to minimize expenses. I try to maximize revenue."

Good point. A healthy balance of both focuses would be the best.

As for the resort real estate, I'm talking specifically about lodging operations. Not about when we go out, develop a property, sell it once, and never see income from it again. It's just a speculation of mine that is not specified in the economic report--but I think that, looking at averages for all these big resorts, the lodging operations play a big role in the final profit margin.

Just think--resorts who focus on destination skiers attract them on weekdays, as opposed to day-areas who struggle to get their weekend skiers to come some other day. Smoothing demand over the week is key for a resort that makes its patrons stand in lines--only on Saturdays and Sundays.

So back to Dino: could I say that these larger resorts are doing precisely what you are saying--focusing on maximizing revenues? Seems to work! You have no chairs left to sell on Saturdays. But you do have plenty of chairs to sell on weekdays.

[Lift Dinosaur]

SkiBachelor, on Nov 19 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

I agree about that statement 100%, but there are times when you should cut costs. For example, if supplier B can save you $10 per part compared to supplier A, you should switch. ]

On a $20 part - yes. On a $1000 part - the relationship with the vendor may be worth more than that.
I refer to this as controlling costs, not cutting costs. Cutting costs is when a department is told to reduce their budget by 5%.

My $0.02 - 5%

Dino

This post has been edited by Lift Dinosaur: 19 November 2007 - 04:25 PM

[Lift Dinosaur]

So back to Dino: could I say that these larger resorts are doing precisely what you are saying--focusing on maximizing revenues? Seems to work! You have no chairs left to sell on Saturdays. But you do have plenty of chairs to sell on weekdays.

Absolutely. They have sold the Real Estate, invested in Capital Improvements (Lifts, Snocats, more Real Estate), generate revenue from Property Management, Lodging Services, Resturants, etc. etc. and they fill the empty weekday chairs.
I think that if you dig deep enough into the "day areas", you may also find that when the season ends the doors are closed and only a handful of core employees stay on through the off season.
At the "larger resorts", they have learned to maximize revenues with chairlift rides, concerts, mountain bike events, etc. etc. which could account for a big portion of that 8% difference.
MHO

[LiftTech]

SkiBachelor, on Nov 19 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

I agree about that statement 100%, but there are times when you should cut costs. For example, if supplier B can save you $10 per part compared to supplier A, you should switch. This is how I'm looking at the issue, like insurance companies, resort supplies, etc.

Only if it’s the same exact part made by the same company, 9 times out of 10 if you buy a cheap bearing/bolt, what you end up with is a cheap bearing/bolt that you will replace in the middle of the winter and the risks outweigh the reward and at the end of the day it’s not cheaper or safer.

[SkiBachelor]

The goal of any firm should not be to maximize revenue, but to to maximize profit!

I know a lot of companies have tried to maximize revenue over profit and I'm pretty sure ASC was one of them.

[cjb]

Emax, on Nov 13 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

For technical jobs, I would prefer to hire people who have no more than a casual interest in snow sports. For the most part, a love of skiing is the last thing I'd like to see on a resume.

I don't know E-max, if it wasn't for the snowboarding and skiing I wouldn't be working at a ski resort, I would probably be at the beach where I could surf and scuba dive instead. Being able to go out and ride, (and teach my kids to ski and ride) is THE only resort benefit that matters to me. Of course I don't like to see a love of skiing/riding on resumes either though, it means more competitiion for on-snow time for me!

[Callao]

If resorts are lucky, there will be enough people to hire who have both a good work ethic, as well as a passion for the sport. I think that's really important.