Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Aspen Skiing

    Uploaded by

    jb2326
    16 views9 pages
    Aspen Skiing antitrust regulation case, USA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Aspen Skiing antitrust regulation case, USA

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views9 pages

    Aspen Skiing

    Uploaded by

    jb2326
    Aspen Skiing antitrust regulation case, USA

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 9
    iti olist. 9 «oh competition seems better suited thant A Process of unimpeded ot gfconelusion with such changing condit; Bi ic got ions, Skiing Co. v. Aspen Hi sper n Highla = ASP 472. US, 585 nae nds Skiing Corp. justo STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court. is a destination ski re: i t tate Aspen 18 @ sort with four m : . i owned 3 of those 4 mountains, having ae ght another in 1964 after it was already developed, and mountain, ii developed a third in 1967 after others obtained the land tice piaintiff Highlands owned the fourth mountain. Developing another ski ountain in Dena ue because it generally required approval poth by the US. Forest Service, which was contingent on environmental concerns and by the county, which had an anti-growth policy] {Starting in 1962, the competing Aspen ski mountains jointly offered allAspen six-day passes that were useable by skiers on any Aspen mountain, usually sold at a discount from the price for six daily lift ticket prices, with the revenue from the.pass distributed to the firms in proportion to the number of skiers who used its mountains. This] provided convenience to the vast majority of skiers who visited the resort for weekly periods, but preferred to remain flexible about what mountain they might ski each day during the visit. ... Highlands’ share of the revenues from the [all-Aspen] ticket was 11.5% in 1973-1974, 18.5% in 1974-1975, 16.8% in 1975-1976, and 13.2% in 1976-1977.8 During these four seasons, Ski Co. did not offer its own 3-area, multi-day ticket in competition with the all-Aspen ticket. By See Elhauge, Defining Better Monopolization Standards, supra note 40, at, 325-26. ‘ Highlands’ share of the total market during those seasons, as measured in skier visits was 16.8% in 1973-1974, 17.1% in 1974-1975, 17.4% in 1975-1976, and 20.5% in 1976-1977. _* In 1975, the Colorado Attorney General filed a complaint against Ski Co, and Highlands alleging, in part, that the negotiations over the 4-area ticket had provided them with 8 forum for price fixing in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. ... In 1977, the case was settled CHAP Ree 1LLE6s 5% of the total Mark, ‘Uymarerat conDuct ts for nearly additional daily fiche Waar Uw tet te 462 . count ccoun me ace tickets 2°" also Fs 1977, multiarea passes d to continue the’ a) tiarea Pen them offere all Holders of mu with Co. ed shay sales to persons aeee 1978 seasons SHI 13.2% fix T° Of the 1977-1 ++ [Flor the ld accel ds that the 1976 , wot uni 7 ticket only if Bigblan te ed on the fons that year, bud When Aspen tial ticket’s revenues. ighlands 7S sr con Highlan’ f weathe ue based on actual Usagg) hi .s an outlier because a to divide eeraes of 15% for the 1st are wa ‘inued to ref d pel Pi Ski company comtally accepted & og that season of actual usage g Highlands eventually de ntains. 4 1978 season. No su ‘tors’ mou! etitors’ moun” ingl; fi increasingly expro, the 4-area ticket at the tw agement of Ski Co. i 8S ys the mani In the 1970's # ained that a coy ‘They comp! a n ticket“ rratively cumbersome, their dislike for the eee Mas administrati ly , : method of monitoring They. ici ere conducti doubted the scouraey ott he college students who we " tit deportment, [and] a cting: view that the dara ition Ski Cos president had expressed ee by Ski Coa Caen axing off reventes inst Co, had reinstated ita 3-area, § ticket was oning 0 fact, 2 ‘ the ticket was discontinued 8 season, but that ticket had been outso} day ticket during ne. by the darea, 6day ticket nearly a ‘one. recommended i i In March 1918, ener discontinued for the 1978-197; caer te hat ite ca to offer Highlands a 4-area ticket Provide that Highlands would agree to receive a 125% fixed percentage of the revenie sedeably fob Highlands’ historical average based gy usage Later in the 1978-1979 season, a member of Ski Co.'s board of directors eandily informed a Highlands oficial that he had advocated making Highlands ‘an offer that [it] could not accept. a Finding the proposal unacceptable, Highlands Suggested distribution of the revenues based on usage to be monitored by coupon; electronic counting, or random sample surveys. If Ski Co. was concerne about who was to conduct the survey, Highlands Proposed to. hin disinterested ticket counters at its own expense—“somebody like Price Waterhouse”—to count or Survey usage of the 4-area ticket at Highlan Ski Co. refused to consider any counterproposals, and Highlands finall rejected the offer of the fixed percentage, ¥ Te ce took fcitonal actions that made it extremely difficult for i inds to m:; i ii cen ae et its own multiarea Package to replace season,}8 and also 's discount operator's or at ative product, the “act, Te set at Highlands and three vouch, et at a Ski Co, ic] Con; rome sia mt seit in an Aspen bank: TR vougheqe 2! to the neo! 8 Ba lep’ f ere ey sale. Ski Co., however, refuse, dite accent Pe b i . q aS amen Teavcen med the Adve neti ki Co. eventual vs Cheeks or momar’ Pack to contain snug for daily lift tickers eeP%d these nei’®, OFders instant of oa enbare Pack met conside a ite some sirens of ees in " rable resi 8 of the ‘asumers Who had grown accustomed ‘ton from tour aps

    You might also like