You are here

National Park Service, In Court Filing, Claims Xanterra Trying To Block Competition In Grand Canyon Concessions Business

Share

In a strongly worded response to Xanterra Parks & Resort's request for an injunction to remain in business past year's end on the South Rim of Grand Canyon National Park, lawyers for the National Park Service argue that the concessionaire is trying to thwart competition and feels its history on the rim entitles it to remain there.

Less than three weeks remain until Xanterra's current contract to operate lodging and dining facilities on the South Rim expires, and there is no temporary contract in place to ensure continued operation of the El Tovar Hotel, Bright Angel Lodge, Maswick Lodge, and other lodgings and restaurants beyond New Year's Eve. 

On December 16 a U.S. District Court judge in Denver is scheduled to hear arguments over Xanterra's request that the Park Service be barred from closing the South Rim lodging and dining operations on December 31 and allow the concessionaire to remain in business there until a new 15-year contract is awarded.

Doing so, the federal government counters in its 48-page response, would not maintain the "status quo," but rather upset it, cause competitive harm, and prevent the Park Service from making concessions contracts more competitive as Congress directed it to through the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998.

"In its Complaint and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Xanterra stresses that it has operated at the South Rim of the Grand Canyon for over a century, as though this history constituted an entitlement to continued operations," the government's response reads. "Xanterra has resisted the Park Service'™s efforts to enhance competition for the South Rim concessions, complaining, for example, that the Park Service'™s $100 million buy-down of its LSI was 'not requested nor welcomed by Xanterra.'

"In an effort to maintain its advantageous position, Xanterra now seeks a preliminary injunction that would allow it to continue operating nearly all of the South Rim concessions, deprive Delaware North of the benefit of its successful bid for a new contract that includes some concessions that Xanterra now operates, prevent the Park Service from entertaining bids from any competitors, and limiting the terms of a temporary contract to essentially the terms of Xanterra'™s expiring contract '” all for the duration of this litigation."

Alternate Text
The clock is winding down on efforts to keep the El Tovar Hotel open past year's end/Xanterra Parks & Resorts

The standoff between the Park Service and Xanterra has been brewing for more than a year, and has laid open the problem of possessory interest, or "leaseholder surrender interest," in the National Park System. That interest essentially is built up as a concessionaire invests in properties it operates for the Park Service. If a new concessionaire is awarded a contract, it must pay the outgoing concessionaire the amount of LSI it has accumulated.

At the Grand Canyon, Xanterra's LSI was determined in 2013 to stand at $198 million -- "the highest amount associated with a single contract in Park Service history," according to the government's response to Xantera's request for an injunction. Park Service officials viewed that amount as a barrier to other companies that might be interested in operating the South Rim concessions, and a decision was made to 1) break the single concessions contract for the South Rim in two, and 2) buy down Xanterra's LSI by $100 million, a sum 88 park units contributed to earlier this year. 

It was in 2013 that the Park Service announced that it would split the single South Rim contract into two, and both Xanterra and Delaware North bid on the smaller of the two. This past August the Park Service announced that it was awarding the contract to Delaware North. That left the larger contract, known as the "001 Contract," up in the air. That contract had been extended three times to Xanterra after the initial contract expired. The third extension, which runs out this Dec. 31, is the last one allowed by law.

It's the contractual expiration of the 001 contract that is the "status quo," the government argues, not Xanterra's right to continue to run the concessions. If the court grants the injunction, it would go against the status quo, the government contends. Granting of an injunction also would deny Delaware North the contract it rightfully won for the other concessions on the South Rim, the motion argues.

"...Xanterra fails to show that it will suffer irreparable harm because of any actions by the Park Service. Instead, the alleged harms are the result of the expiration of Xanterra'™s existing contract (which has already been extended for the maximum period allowed by law) and its failure to be the successful bidder on one of the new contracts," the motion reads. " In addition, the balance of equities favors the Park Service. In contrast to Xanterra, whose alleged injuries are not traceable to any NPS action and are therefore illusory, an injunction would prevent the Park Service from exercising its lawful authority to execute a contract with Delaware North.

"In the larger scheme, it would also thwart the goal of fostering competition among prospective concessioners, and would introduce uncertainty into the concession contracting process going forward. Moreover, an injunction would be adverse to the public interest, because it would stymie the competitive process that helps ensure satisfactory service to Park visitors and a fair return to taxpayers."

Park officials did not respond Thursday to an inquiry into whether they have a plan for managing South Rim concessions if the injunction is denied and if a temporary 1-year contract is not awarded. However, in the government's response park officials said they were working hard to negotiate a temporary agreement. Too, they denied that visitors to the park would be greatly impacted if there's a lapse in hotel and restaurant operations.

"Even in the unlikely event that the Park Service is unable to enter into a temporary contract to address the services covered by the 001 Prospectus before the existing contract expires on December 31, 2014, the Park itself will remain open to day visitors and tent campers, and the concessions under the new 003 (Delaware North) Contract would be available, including an RV campground," the motion notes.

"Visitors may be inconvenienced by restaurant and other closures, but only a small minority will have planned to stay in concessioner lodging, and given the time of year, they will doubtless be able to find accommodations nearby. Nonetheless, even a short interruption of some services in the Park is not a desirable outcome, and NPS is working hard to prevent this. However, it is not in the public interest to keep all of the South Rim concessions open at any cost." 

 

Comments

No, Ec, not entitlement.  The country quote,"You take care of your cows and they will take care of you."  

The look that someone observed and posted on here as to the uncomfortable expressions on some employees while giving service to visitors is the look of not being supported in their efforts to do their job.  Use them up, there are legions of internationals or out of work Americans to take their place, for awhile.  There are companies out there that recognize that it's good business to respect their employees with that respect being passed on to visitors.  I agree that businesses have the choice and their subsequent rewards.   Not the entitlement deal with me.


ec--While the purpose of business is not to provide jobs (a debatable point), it certainly does not restrain them from promising local communities from which they are seeking tax credits or other special treatment for locating new factories or industriess in desirable locations to trumpet the number of new jobs that will be created in the local area.

Rick

 

 

 


Yes Trail, businesses should respect their employees.  However, they shouldn't put that "respect" ahead of what is good for the business (or NPS). If the business suffers while "respecting" its employees but not minding its bottom line it won't be good for anyone.

For Rick - I would like to hear your "debate" on how you conclude that the purpose of businesses is to provide jobs.   From where does that obligation eminate?


Isn't there at least a moral responsibility for any employer to regard employees as more than mere chattel?  Is it not true that it is the employees, and not the owner alone, who either makes a business a success or failure?  Who is really the one feeling entitled in cases in which owners regard the labor of their employees without value and without the valuing the people who make their success possible?  Is it not true that companies with the highest productivity -- and usually, profitabilitiy -- are those with deservedly high employee morale?

The Great American Entitlement Mentality exists in more than just the lower levels.  In fact, I submit that it is at its greatest near the top of the economic stratosphere.

Unfortunately, the entire syndrome is a concept almost completely lost upon those who cling most tightly to their feelings of entitlement regardless of where they stand on the comparative scale.


Personally, i'm all for less mule rides down into the canyon.  After an experience where I hiked down the bright angel in a rainstorm and walked back up only to encounter a nasty stream of mule waste running downhill to the colorado river, i'm for limiting the mule traffic.  Just for the environmental reasons it was a smart move. There were too many mules on the trail during the last decade.  If there is even a 1/4 of the traffic, then that's a good thing.  These mule trains don't bury their waste and have created a sewage pit.  Backpackers are supposed to bury their droppings, so the mule trains should be required to do a cleanup too.


Like I said ec, "You take care of your cows and they will take care of you."  Every business has a choice according their own ideas on what level and type of success they desire.  Some businesses recognize that one can't give their best (seriously best) for any length of time without reward that supports their effort.  If the best isn't really required, yes, move on to the next sap and their customer contact accordingly.

 


Trail - I agree with you 100% that a company is best served by treating its employees well. But it has no obligation, and in fact it is doing itself and its remaining employees a disservice to keep someone employed or pursue unwise business arrangements merely for the sake of giving somebody a job.  A business has no more moral obligation to provide a job than do you or I. 


So, what could be the reasoning (really) that NPS's growing dissatisfaction with Xanterra has gotten us to this point?  NPS have any culpability?  What is the remedy?  What's best served for the public?  


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.