New Disney Vacation Club Resort

[johnboywallnut]

I heard that dis is going to build a new vacation club resort at ak. pirate:

[Sarangel]

That's an interesting rumor, but where did you hear it? The last one I heard was that they would put a DVC into the Contemporary.

Sarangel

[LodgeMan]

When we were there last week, we talked to our guide and he indicated that the Contemporary plans were approved ( I assumed preliminary site plans, etc) but that another resort would be built first. But, as with anything DVC-rumor related, I take it with a grain of salt.

[johnboywallnut]

this is not a rumor, i had a talk, with one of the builders.

[Lord Fantasius]

this is not a rumor, i had a talk, with one of the builders.
Was he building a bridge in Brooklyn at the time you were talking with him...?

-R

[ralphd]

Was he building a bridge in Brooklyn at the time you were talking with him...?

-R

.....to the moon?

[Sarangel]

All right, guys. Be nice. This may be a legitimate rumor.

[johnboywallnut]

hey lord, do even knew where Brooklyn is. your a losser

[mitros]

This one is deteriorating quickly, isn't it?

[Crazy Hakim]

I heard that dis is going to build a new vacation club resort at ak. pirate:

There is a Billboard, on Buena Vista Drive, sort of behind Epcot, traveling west, when you go past Old Key West, under the overpass, but before you reach Caribbean Beach Resort, on the right side the billboard shows a wrapped present, and the DVC Logo, and it clearly says "Coming Soon"
That's it.......
Doesn't say where.

With the success of the DVC's, Animal Kingdom would be a likely choice.

[Maistre Gracey]

There is a Billboard, on Buena Vista Drive, sort of behind Epcot, traveling west, when you go past Old Key West, under the overpass, but before you reach Caribbean Beach Resort, on the right side the billboard shows a wrapped present, and the DVC Logo, and it clearly says "Coming Soon"
That's it.......
Doesn't say where.

With the success of the DVC's, Animal Kingdom would be a likely choice.
Well, I heard what was "coming soon" was the DVC advertising billboard covered by the wrapping paper. :rotfl:

MG

[Lord Fantasius]

hey lord, do even knew where Brooklyn is. your a losser
Yeah, yeah, isn't that somewhere in California where the Dodgers play?

Detoriating quickly, that's for sure....

It would be neat to have a DVC resort at AKL (even though I don't own), and it does make sense, but whether the hoopla over building a DVC resort at the CR was just a diversion (either intentionally or not) or a reality, that rumour has been around for awhile and they probably aren't any closer to building it than they were two years ago (o.k., don't know that for a fact, but one would think that during the renovation of the CR they would have indicated it then). The only indication DVC @ CR isn't far off is that while there are completion dates for the renovation of various floors of the tower and the south garden wing, none of the schedules indicate any renovation for the north garden...hence, either they want to see how the renovation is going or they have other ideas in mind for the north garden wing.

With the success of the DVC's, Animal Kingdom would be a likely choice.
Its' funny, but is the AK that successful to warrant a DVD resort? For what they were built for, AKL is more succesful than the AK, so which influences the building of a DVC resort more? The existing resort or the park it's nearby? If you said the park, MK would win hands down, so why not build a DVC resort there first?

[Maistre Gracey]

Its' funny, but is the AK that successful to warrant a DVD resort? For what they were built for, AKL is more succesful than the AK, so which influences the building of a DVC resort more? The existing resort or the park it's nearby? If you said the park, MK would win hands down, so why not build a DVC resort there first?
Well they sorta did... The Villas at Wilderness Lodge. I know it's not on the mono, or an easy walk from The Contemporary, but it is a Magic Kingdom resort. :drinking:

MG

[jade1]

AK DVC would be good, but is there any way they could expand the AK waterway to have a boat system to AK like VWL? That would help a lot and "almost" put AK DVC in our "addon" list (if EXP EVEREST is good).

[bicker]

I cannot imagine that ever happening. The cost would be prohibitive.

[jade1]

Bummer, I have never seen an areial shot to see how far the hotel is from AK etc. The only thing I hate more than counting on the bus system is driving. I assume a walkway is way to long also then?

[Lord Fantasius]

Bummer, I have never seen an areial shot to see how far the hotel is from AK etc. The only thing I hate more than counting on the bus system is driving. I assume a walkway is way to long also then?
It's probably about the distance between the Grand Floridian and the MK if you could walk it along the bay directly between the two. I have a few good aerial views but still haven't mastered how to attach one to a post; however, there's a couple of sites you can go to to get aerial views of almost anywhere, including Disney...terraserver works well as well as a couple of the others.

At this point bicker might be right, the cost probably would be prohibitive, or at least not enough return on the investment, to build a waterway between AK and AKL, though the effect would be quite nice (a topological map shows the area inbetween AKL and AK is actually pretty marshy...high water table...and ergo, pretty hard to tame). A steam train or trolley system between the two would be alot cheaper and as effective, especially if it spurred growth of a DVC and possible another resort in the area.

What confuses me however is that Disney, Inc's, mantra about why they can't build anymore hotel resorts, or even finish off POP, is that the local area does not have a large enough labor pool to increase Disney's staffing necessary to support additional hotel rooms...at least that's what we've been told everytime the issue of another resort is kicked around. Now, whether that's true (admittedly, the labor supply in the LBV-region is getting fairly restricted) or just an excuse, why the gung-ho effort to churn out DVC-resorts one after another?

Understandably, the DVC program is extremely profitable for Disney, Inc., and with the 40-year limit on ownership contracts (unlike a true timeshare), the resorts will eventually convert to regular nigthly resorts starting in another 25 years, and that might be the answer to the question, but still doesn't resolve the problem of staffing. Do DVC-resorts require that many less workers than a full-service resort? I know rooms are only cleaned twice a week or between guests, but that would only reduce the maid service by about half; it wouldn't necessarily mean all other staffing is reduced.

-R

[bicker]

At this point bicker might be right, the cost probably would be prohibitive, or at least not enough return on the investment, to build a waterway between AK and AKLI figure if it was anywhere near viable, they would have done it when they had the whole area under construction, when they were building AK.

Do DVC-resorts require that many less workers than a full-service resort? I know rooms are only cleaned twice a week or between guests, but that would only reduce the maid service by about half; it wouldn't necessarily mean all other staffing is reduced.Half? Try 85%. Really, with all the churn, it's probably closer to 75%.

[Lord Fantasius]

I figure if it was anywhere near viable, they would have done it when they had the whole area under construction, when they were building AK.
Not to bicker, bicker, but there have been many, many, many viable things Disney COULD HAVE built when an area was initially under construction but choose to delay until later on once they saw how use unfolded or for economic reasons. Think waterbridge between EPCOT and the EPCOT resorts, think walkway/bridge between GF and MK (o.k., so that one's not done yet, but will eventually), think overflow parking lots, widening World Dr., etc. There are hundreds of big and little improvements/enhancements on Disney's, Inc's, masterplan that were viable at time of conception but were not constructed for myriad reasons. There's a difference between viability, feasibility, reasonability, and trying to get away with the least amount of effort to keep the guests coming.

In case we've forgotten, DL and WDW was Walt's gifts to families so they could get away and enjoy themselves within a magical place apart from the stresses of "reality." It was the extension and end result of what Disney, Inc., was meant to support; now it's turned around and the parks are supporting the company! Profiteering from vacationing families was pretty low on Walt's priority list, and yes, that is why Roy was a good balance to keep the co. from going bankrupt, but the whole of WDW is filled with features that are not functionally necessary though are included because it adds to the whole.

Agreeably, I don't think everything should be, or can be done at the same time as it would interfere with the operations of the World, and money might be better spent elsewhere on more immediately necessary enhancements, but there are very few things that are truly cost prohibitive especially considering they already own the land. If Disney, Inc., can dredge out and build an entire lagoon, they can certainly dredge out a 500' waterway if they so desire.

-R

[bicker]

Not to bicker, bicker, but there have been many, many, many viable things Disney COULD HAVE built when an area was initially under construction but choose to delay until later on once they saw how use unfolded or for economic reasons. Not as many as you might think.

Think waterbridge between EPCOT and the EPCOT resortsThis was built as part of the construction of the entire BoardWalk Resort -- part of the development of that entire piece of land.

think walkway/bridge between GF and MK (o.k., so that one's not done yetThanks for providing me a handy counter-example to your assertion. :)

think overflow parking lots, widening World Dr., etc.I don't see the connection. These two were simply small enhancements, necessary for logistical purposes. There is no specific need for a rather expensive canal between AKL and AK.

The only example I can think of, from your standpoint, would be the walkway from the BoardWalk to D-MGM. However, I'm sure you'll agree that the cost of a small ribbon of asphalt on already-stable ground cannot compare to the cost of a canal, even the same length.

[Shamus]

Understandably, the DVC program is extremely profitable for Disney, Inc., and with the 40-year limit on ownership contracts (unlike a true timeshare), the resorts will eventually convert to regular nigthly resorts starting in another 25 years, and that might be the answer to the question, but still doesn't resolve the problem of staffing. -R

Just to clarify ... DVC ownership contracts were originally set to expire after 50 years (not 40) and that expiration is in 2042 which is still 36 years away (not 25). Saratoga is set to expire in 2052. Also DVC is a TRUE timeshare ... IT may not be traditional as it is a lease, but it is still legally a timeshare and falls under the State Timeshare laws.

[jade1]

However, I'm sure you'll agree that the cost of a small ribbon of asphalt on already-stable ground cannot compare to the cost of a canal, even the same length.

Thats kind of what I meant, is there any chance they could at least do this? Or would it be further than MGM to BW making it simply too far. I STILL LIKE THE DREDGE IDEA. :boat:

[raidermatt]

The cost in and of itself would not be prohibitive.

The question is whether the benefit would be greater than the cost, by how much, and how quickly they would see the return. Then it would be compared to other options given the amount of overall capital they are willing to invest in WDW at that time.

To LF's point, certainly its possible for Disney's perception of the benefit of such a waterway to change over time, based on how guests have responded to AK and AKL, and the potential addition of a DVC in that area.

That's not to say that I think they WILL do it. In fact, I'd say its doubtful, based on what we know about how the company thinks and operates. But even within those parameters, its possible.

That said, I would like to see them give it stronger consideration than they likely have. I think it could add a lot to the perceived value of staying at AKL, especially if they are successful at also increasing the overall demand for AK.

[Lord Fantasius]

Just to clarify ... DVC ownership contracts were originally set to expire after 50 years (not 40) and that expiration is in 2042 which is still 36 years away (not 25). Saratoga is set to expire in 2052. Also DVC is a TRUE timeshare ... IT may not be traditional as it is a lease, but it is still legally a timeshare and falls under the State Timeshare laws.
O.k., my apologies, the fact that it still reverts back to Disney, Inc., no matter the amount of time or money invested by the leaseholder still sits wrong with me, but I probably would be arguing from the other side if I bought when I first had the chance.

This was built as part of the construction of the entire BoardWalk Resort -- part of the development of that entire piece of land.
But they built the Boardwalk up after S/D was there didn't they? I guess my point was that plans change and so does what Disney, Inc., thinks will benefit the Corporation the most. Two of the originally-intended resorts were never built while most everything else, except for MK, CR, Poly, & FW, weren't even on the plans until after Walt died.

Disney has a keen perception of what amount of work will generate what amount of direct income over the first 5 - 7 years, they are very poor at long-term "big picture" projects...their guideline appears to be if it doesn't generate a direct profit in its second year, let's pull it and see what else we can do...in a nutshell, they seem to be better at crisis management than they are at proactive investing and building. Proactive management doesn't wait until there is a problem with garbage or paint-peeling for people to start complaining, it walks the property and looks at where the weakness lies before it becomes a visible problem.

Again, I love the idea of some sort of direct link between AKL, AK, and an AK DVC resort, and even though a canal would be kind of cool, it would be rather costly; so as long as there is some sort of tracks on top that strip of asphalt, e.g., train, trolley, WEDway people-mover (though it would be hard to fit into the theme), I would love to see it happen.

-R

[drakethib]

I cannot imagine that ever happening. The cost would be prohibitive.

Why so Bick?

I would think they could get a ROI from such a project.

It would become part of the DVC so that would be a selling item point in itself which could possibly attract more people to the club.

Heck,if I was a venture capitalist I would throw my money that way (not that they need it).

With that being said, and please note that I am not as much of a Disney Guru as others on this board, but what has Disney backed away from due to cost?


Didn't some Disney Manager say something about why not build something that cost a lot for no reason?

[bicker]

Matt explained it, above. It is doubtful that such a large outlay for that specific purpose would ever be the best use of available capital.

DVC practically sells itself. The fact that we were talking about the "next" DVC so soon after SSR went on sale is testament to that. For that reason, there isn't much return to derive from digging a canal -- it just wouldn't translate into as much of a long-term revenue stream as, say, taking that capital and applying it to a new attraction.

[jade1]

I guess its been beat to death and thanks for all the input.

I can say we will not add on at AKL (I'm sure Disney is shaking) with its current isolation from the parks (same with EP/OKW/SSR). May as well be 10 miles away IMHO because if you want to arrive at an attraction or PS with the bus system you need to leave your room about an hour before hand to be safe.

[doubletrouble_vb]

Matt explained it, above. It is doubtful that such a large outlay for that specific purpose would ever be the best use of available capital.

DVC practically sells itself. The fact that we were talking about the "next" DVC so soon after SSR went on sale is testament to that. For that reason, there isn't much return to derive from digging a canal -- it just wouldn't translate into as much of a long-term revenue stream as, say, taking that capital and applying it to a new attraction.

I'm not so sure this logic holds. Why did they build the canal from OKW, Port Orleans and Dixie Landings? Why did they do the excavations at SSR to provide water views away from the DTD waterfront? Easier than a canal yes but equally unnecessary. If a big enough DVC is built on the AKL canal waterfront real estate perhaps the return would be justified. It would also serve to eliminate the need for making the DVC buildings have savannah access. In addition some type of water transit would encourage park goers to take the easy and attractive "water ride" over to the AKL for good quality TS meals and deluxe shopping.

[Another Voice]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.

The Lodge is WDW’s most problematic deluxe resort. The DVC rumors you’re reading about are mostly likely coming from an idea of turning some of the existing hotel space into DVC units. Disney can’t fill the existing Lodge, so it’s better to find another use for those empty rooms. If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them – it’s a huge benefit for Disney.

The cost of building a cannel suitable for a boat is pretty cheap. It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits. WDW is run as a cash machine to fund the rest of the company. Nothing is going to be built unless is returns instant money back to Corporate (if I remember correctly, the debt Disney took over when it bought Fox Family was roughly the same as the combined cost of Animal Kingdom and the Lodge).

[bicker]

I'm not so sure this logic holds. Why did they build the canal from OKW, Port Orleans and Dixie Landings? Flood prevention, I believe.

Why did they do the excavations at SSR to provide water views away from the DTD waterfront?That's a whole big resort they built there, so, as I said before, that's the time they'd have made such capital investments.

If a big enough DVC is built on the AKL canal waterfront real estate perhaps the return would be justified.Yes...this is good. I think we're coming to consensus. If a DVC the size of OKW or SSR is built, then yes, I think you could be correct.

There is no way they're going to build a DVC that size there. It would be remarkable if they build a DVC the size of BWV -- I would guess that both the AKL DVC and the Contemporary DVC would be about the same size as BCV.

It would also serve to eliminate the need for making the DVC buildings have savannah access.I'm pretty sure that was never in the cards, anyway. If they can sell SSR out in a few years, they can sell a small AKL DVC out in far less time, without a canal, and without savannah views. :confused3 Time will tell.

[GrimGhost]

...If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them.....
Why so bitter? I know I wasn't conned. I know I didn't buy real estate in Disney. I know it's on an expiring ground lease. I also know that I will go to WDW every year and enjoy my vacations. I seriously doubt that most people who bought were unaware of the expiration.

[Galahad]

I thought DVC was over built years ago. Anybody in the know have an opinion about saturation of DVC? It seems they will build one more that is supportable at this rate.

[pedro2112]

It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits.


Wrong. Out of the hundred or so Amusement parks in this country, Animal Kingdom drew 8.2 million people into the park last year... making it the eight most popular theme park in the United States.

[Lord Fantasius]

Wrong. Out of the hundred or so Amusement parks in this country, Animal Kingdom drew 8.2 million people into the park last year... making it the eight most popular theme park in the United States.
According to theme park insider it was the fifth most park visited in North America/USA. But that figure isn't as impressive as it sounds...it had the smallest increase on both an absolute basis (less than half a million visitors) and percentage increase (less than 5%) of any of the four WDW parks over 2004. By comparison, MK increased its attendance by 6.5% or more than a million visitors. However, the only figure that would really matter would be how many visitors only visited AK without park hopping. Unfortunately, only Disney can compile this information and the people that have it are likely sworn to greater secrecy than Area 51.

[bicker]

The rate of sale is a good guage of saturation, and based on that DVC has at least a couple of more properties to go before it could possibly reach saturation.

[peter11435]

According to theme park insider it was the fifth most park visited in North America/USA. But that figure isn't as impressive as it sounds...it had the smallest increase on both an absolute basis (less than half a million visitors) and percentage increase (less than 5%) of any of the four WDW parks over 2004. By comparison, MK increased its attendance by 6.5% or more than a million visitors. However, the only figure that would really matter would be how many visitors only visited AK without park hopping. Unfortunately, only Disney can compile this information and the people that have it are likely sworn to greater secrecy than Area 51.

The attendance figure only counts the first park a guest enters. Thus when they say 8.2 million at AK, those are all people who went to AK as their first park park of the day. If they later went to Epcot they were not counted on Epcots attendance on this list.

[peter11435]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.

The Lodge is WDW’s most problematic deluxe resort. The DVC rumors you’re reading about are mostly likely coming from an idea of turning some of the existing hotel space into DVC units. Disney can’t fill the existing Lodge, so it’s better to find another use for those empty rooms. If people can be conned, er, I mean convinced to “buy” them – it’s a huge benefit for Disney.

The cost of building a cannel suitable for a boat is pretty cheap. It’s just that it won’t generate any real revenue because people see its only purpose is to move people from a hotel no one stays at to a park no one visits. WDW is run as a cash machine to fund the rest of the company. Nothing is going to be built unless is returns instant money back to Corporate (if I remember correctly, the debt Disney took over when it bought Fox Family was roughly the same as the combined cost of Animal Kingdom and the Lodge).

Thank You Captain Negative. Only you could look at Everest as a bad thing. I would hardly call the lodge (or AK a failure). I guess you have never tried to get a last minute room at the lodge. While they don't charge as much as other deluxe resorts the hotel is often very busy and many times full. I really wonder sometimes where you get your "facts."

[bicker]

Thank You Captain Negative.Hehe... I'll have to remember that one! :rotfl:

[MainStreetFan]

I was taken on a tour of one of the refurbished rooms at the CR a couple of weeks ago and while walking up to the room, the concierge told us the North tower would be torn down and a 5 story DVC building would replace it. I haven't seen any rehab work on that building, only the tower and south building. This would seem to back up what he told us.

[SoCalKDG]

It’s more likely the real reasons have more to do with corporate politics than with “prohibitive costs”.

Both the park and the lodge have the reputation as being failures. Getting anyone to pour “more good money after bad” is an extremely hard sell considering the year Disney just had. And before anyone starts screaming about ‘Everest’ – remember the it’s a hacked-budget version of the original ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ attraction which was in turn a hacked-budget replacement for the original Beastly Kingdom area. ‘Everest’ is simply the lowest cost approach Disney can come up with to jolt attendance.$100 million doesn't seem like the lowest cost they could have come up with. Then they have the additional cost of changing the Tarzan Theater, doesn't seem that cheap. Looks like they are going to get their money's worth as well with initial reviews seeing the ride as a souped up version of BTMRR with que theming that is as good as it gets. I see AK eventually passing DS in attendance if they don't get some new rides into DS.

[Galahad]

The rate of sale is a good guage of saturation, and based on that DVC has at least a couple of more properties to go before it could possibly reach saturation.

I agree, but with respect to quality of product they are overbuilt and were years ago. DVC worked best when it was a bit smaller, IMO.

[bicker]

Quality of product and quantity of product are not mutually exclusive. I understand you to be saying that you feel that DVC worked better for you when it was smaller. I don't find that to be the case, for me.

[raidermatt]

While they don't charge as much as other deluxe resorts the hotel is often very busy and many times full. I really wonder sometimes where you get your "facts."

Why do you think they don't charge as much as they do for the other Deluxes? Do you believe that was their intent when they built it?

Are the park and lodge losing money? Nah.

Are they providing the returns the company anticipated? Nah.

Certainly they didn't cancel Beastly Kingdom and build Dinorama because of the park's overwhelming success.

Failure is relative. Its important to keep that in mind before questioning the integrity/sincerity of other posters.

$100 million doesn't seem like the lowest cost they could have come up with.
To "jolt attendance"? I think that's actually a pretty conservative estimate. What could they do for say, $50 million that could really jolt attendance? It seems that they tried to do it more cheaply with Dinorama. While its true some guests like it, its still pretty clear that it didn't significantly impact attendance. Perhaps kept it from falling, but that's it.

I see AK eventually passing DS in attendance if they don't get some new rides into DS.


Well, I can agree with that. If any park is allowed to stagnate, its attendance will eventually suffer. Look at what was happening to Epcot.

Still, in that scenario, it would be more an indictment of the management of DS than praise of the management of AK.


On DVC, I don't see its size creating any real quality issues per say. I do wonder about the long term financial impact on the resort, especially if they continue to build.

[Lord Fantasius]

When it comes to building more DVC resorts or even resorts in general, you really don't want to build to saturation...or to the point were there is no further demand. The only way a product retains or increases in value is its desirability by other people; if a resort just becomes one of many the market will push down the price to the lowest amount people will pay for a generic product. Even now you can roughly gauge the inherent value in DVC ownership by how much a DVC owner is willing to rent their points for. Yes, a while back they were going for $5-$6 a point, then up to $9 - $10/pt just last year, and now they seem to be around $8/pt.

Whether that's a long term trend, I don't know, but once Disney starts building DVC resorts just to fill demand without recompense, the "value" of DVC ownership will diminish unless there is added value artificially awarded to current members (discounts, dining plans, etc.). Otherwise, there would be no inducement to buy, for example, at VWL now if I knew they were going to be building three more wings of them right next to the current one; I would just wait until the cost of ownership fell into my budget and Disney would lose out on a big portion of those that buy on impulse - admittedly not everyone or possibly not the majority, but I would gather a good portion!

Honestly, I would have liked to have bought into DVC at its inception (particularly at VWL), but now it's just too pricey for what I can get out of it since I've moved farther away. Ergo, I would much prefer they start looking at value or moderate "studio" type rooms for people like us that can't spend $200+ a night on property. Currently, they are pushing that market into the seconday market of DVC point rentals since that is the only way non-DVC owners can stay in a studio-type arrangement for less than a king's ransom. If Disney, Inc., ever does build reasonably priced studio accomodations, it's the DVC owners that will take the hardest hit against their rental opportunities.

-R

[doubletrouble_vb]

Why do you say DVC is renting at $8 per point? There were always people with distressed points who simply wanted to unload them at less than $10 per point but as far as I can tell the majority of people are renting at $10 or more per point. The rental price has been $10 per point for the past few years not "just last year". And the market seems to be sustaining the majority renting at $10 just fine.

As for articificially rewarding owners...DVC has done that all along. The DVC program is more than just the ability to get a DVC unit for points (although that is the privilege each owner actually purchased).

[Lord Fantasius]

Why do you say DVC is renting at $8 per point? There were always people with distressed points who simply wanted to unload them at less than $10 per point but as far as I can tell the majority of people are renting at $10 or more per point. The rental price has been $10 per point for the past few years not "just last year". And the market seems to be sustaining the majority renting at $10 just fine.

As for articificially rewarding owners...DVC has done that all along. The DVC program is more than just the ability to get a DVC unit for points (although that is the privilege each owner actually purchased).
Maybe it was a fire sale, but it was on another website. True, currently on the DIS there does seem to be more people wanting to rent than those having points available for rent, though I've seen it the other way around not too long ago, and the price does seem to be around $10/pt, but doesn't that tell you something there? If the rental price has been stagnant at $10/pt for the past several years while rooms at resorts have increased on an average 5% annually since longer than that, that would seem to imply the DVC market is saturated and the non-DVC resorts are not.

-R

[G8RFAN]

Actually it means that supply (people who know that DVC studios and suites exist and that points can be rented) is much smaller than the volume of demand channeling thru Disney's CRO. I bet that if there were a safe way to rent points on both sides of the game and that method was marketed as widely as Disney markets its own resorts, you will have the rental price per point closer to the cash ressie price. Right now it is a "cottage industry" so to speak.

I have attempted to get reservations at AKL a number of times and have consistently been told that they were fully booked. Unless they are closing entire wings to reduce overhead, I can not see AKL as a failure. In fact, it has been quite a while since I've seen AP or FL deluxe discount rates applicable to AKL. Most recently, it's been limited to Poly, WL and CR.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Happiest Celebration On Earth festivities seem to focus more at MK than AK, so that could explain the large disparity in growth for last year.

[raidermatt]

Unless they are closing entire wings to reduce overhead, I can not see AKL as a failure.

Like I said, "failure" is relative. Nothing wrong with your definition, but if we really want to dig beneath the surface and understand what's really going on, we should probably use a bar higher than simply remaining open.

[bicker]

That bar would be load-levels. Unless there is hard data on load-levels, that has been released publicly, that would indicate that AKL is doing anything but as good as its contemporaries, it would be inappropriate to conclude that AKL is anything other than "successful."

[Lord Fantasius]

Actually it means that supply (people who know that DVC studios and suites exist and that points can be rented) is much smaller than the volume of demand channeling thru Disney's CRO. I bet that if there were a safe way to rent points on both sides of the game and that method was marketed as widely as Disney markets its own resorts, you will have the rental price per point closer to the cash ressie price. Right now it is a "cottage industry" so to speak.
Actually DEMAND would be the no. of people who know they can rent points and desire to do so at a pricepoint while SUPPLY would be the volume channeled through Disney's CRO.

In this case, the pricepoint for supply and demand is around $10/pt, which has remained steady for several years. Though as you said that is a "cottage" industry and not widely disseminated through Disney's CRO.

But you're right, if Disney would go into the DVC Point Rental business directly, either the price per point would increase to the level equal to what CRO charges for a night's lodging at a DVC resort, or a night's lodging at a DVC resort would decrease to fall in line with what someone can rent the points for. Admittedly, as long as DVC owners have the right to rent their points out to whomever they want, the cost/pt would not rise too quickly as long as Disney had to compete against thousands of DVC owners...though I'm sure a majority of people would certainly pay a dollar or two more per point if they had the "confidence" of Disney behind their reservation.

It is interesting that through CRO a person can rent a suite at a DVC resort for almost twice what it could be had if the same person rented it out from a DVC owner at $10/pt, but how many people do that only Disney knows.

Questions - 1) does anyone know whether Disney has ever offered to rent back points from a DVC owner so they could make the space available to someone willing to pay "full price" for suite? Also, 2) are DVC resorts ever full committed point-wise or does Disney always have the availability of utilizing some suites at any given time through CRO?

-R

[Horace Horsecollar]

Questions - 1) does anyone know whether Disney has ever offered to rent back points from a DVC owner so they could make the space available to someone willing to pay "full price" for suite? Also, 2) are DVC resorts ever full committed point-wise or does Disney always have the availability of utilizing some suites at any given time through CRO?

Disney "rents back" vast numbers of DVC points every year. DVC members can use their points to book Disney cruises and non-DVC Disney resorts (Disney Collection); deluxe vacation destinations (Concierge Collection); and even safaris and other exotic vacations (Adventurer Collection). When members use DVC points for these three collections, their points are used to reserve DVC resort nights, which are rented out through CRO. As with any rooms and suites in CRO's inventory, some are rented at full price, some at a reduced price, and some stay empty. But, overall, Disney takes in at least as much revenue as they need to pay for the non-Disney and Disney rooms, cruises, and other vacations.

Disney can't legally sell more DVC points (which actually represent resort lease ownership) than total annual capacity of each DVC resort. I understand that Disney sells about 97% of the capacity of each resort. The remaining inventory can used to account for refurbishments and other rooms that a offline. If any rooms aren't need for this purpose, CRO can rent them out. But the vast majority of CRO's DVC inventory comes in when DVC members use the Collections, as described in the previous paragraph.

[raidermatt]

That bar would be load-levels.

And pricing...

[doubletrouble_vb]

The price for DVC rentals by indivdual owners isn't really controlled by a rationale market. That is to say demand isn't driving the price point. Laziness is. There are a lot of owners looking to rent once in a blue moon who don't really think about getting the most money they can for points. They just put their ad out there at what seems like the going rate. A (probably large but I can't prove it) segment of the buyers market is getting a bargain in that they are paying less than they would be willing to pay to get the reservation they want. Another segment would probably switch to offsite, moderates or values if the price point went up.

If DVC has a point buy back program at a price higher than $10 per point that will become the new rental price. I believe that is the source of the start of the current rental price. It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen if they determine that individual rentals are making any sort of dent in reservations at moderates or values.

[raidermatt]

It maybe a market slow to change, but still, if the market would support a higher price, I'm sure it would find its way to the forefront.

That's not to say I think the point rental market is necessarily a good barometer of anything. I haven't looked at it closely enough to make that judgement. It could be, but I don't know that.

[drakethib]

That is to say demand isn't driving the price point. Laziness is. There are a lot of owners looking to rent once in a blue moon who don't really think about getting the most money they can for points. .
I don't believe laziness has anything to do with it.

In the rare occasion that I had any points left over and decided to rented them out, if I covered my annual dues for the year I was happy.

I have in fact rented my points for 5 bucks a point. It covered my AD.

I did not buy DVC as a money making opportunity and I still do not think of DVC as an investment.

It is money spent on something that makes my family happy. I paid for DVC in full and I know I will never see that money again. It’s gone, buh bye, adios.

However, IMHO it lets me enjoy nicer accommodations then a moderate and even deluxe resort.

[doubletrouble_vb]

Okay well maybe I shouldn't say "laziness" but Drakethib just illustrated my point nicely. He (i guess) isn't driven by the notion of profit by charging what the market will bear but is instead lightly driven by the notion of covering his costs...which isn't the best of business models but he isn't IN business.

[DisneyGeek2000]

I saw this rumor over on RADP awhile ago...

Based on aerial shots, using Google Maps, you can definitely see a large space where an AKL DVC building can go; very similar in location to where the VWL is located in relation to the WL; hmm, you would think that the same architect designed them both??? LOL

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sll=39.80703,-75.003997&sspn=0.124486,0.2314&hl=en&q=Disney%27s+Animal+Kingdom+Lodge&ll=28.352054,-81.604643&spn=0.004457,0.007231&t=h

[peter11435]

hmm, you would think that the same architect designed them both??? LOL



Actually they did. Peter Dominick was the architect on both WL and AKL.

[DisneyGeek2000]

Actually they did. Peter Dominick was the architect on both WL and AKL. I know! I was being sarcastic, hence the 'hmm' and the 'LOL'.....

[ralphd]

According to theme park insider it was the fifth most park visited in North America/USA. But that figure isn't as impressive as it sounds...it had the smallest increase on both an absolute basis (less than half a million visitors) and percentage increase (less than 5%) of any of the four WDW parks over 2004. By comparison, MK increased its attendance by 6.5% or more than a million visitors. However, the only figure that would really matter would be how many visitors only visited AK without park hopping. Unfortunately, only Disney can compile this information and the people that have it are likely sworn to greater secrecy than Area 51.

But they did not have a decrease in attendance as did both Orlando Universal Parks. Seaworld also had a small percentage increase in attendance.

[wisbucky]

While on our December 2005 trip to WDW hubby and I spoke with a DVC CM. The CM advised us that DVC was heavily leaning towards the CR. DVC wants to put a DVC resort on the monorail. This would meet the demands of many DVC members who have requested this and become a huge selling/advertising standpoint for DVC. We were told that the quantity of villas at CR would be a small amount. DVC was sure they would sell out quickly.

[spereira]

I was there from Jan 6-16th and spoke to many DVC guides all but one said no other new resort plans are happening yet due to SSR ( hard to believe)..then the other DVC guide at The Contemporary said yes they are talking about building 3 more resorts Contemporary, AKL and Eagle Pines...he said he thinks AKL is going to be first because he has been hearing alot about it. Who knows what is true or not...I just wish they would announce something!!!!!

[peter11435]

I was there from Jan 6-16th and spoke to many DVC guides all but one said no other new resort plans are happening yet due to SSR ( hard to believe)..then the other DVC guide at The Contemporary said yes they are talking about building 3 more resorts Contemporary, AKL and Eagle Pines...he said he thinks AKL is going to be first because he has been hearing alot about it. Who knows what is true or not...I just wish they would announce something!!!!!
Unfortunatly CM's (even the DVC guides) are terrible sources of information.

[dbm20th]

But the guides are terribel sources of information for good reason. What good would it do to them, while they are trying to sell spots at SSR, to tell you what may be coming? It will only serve to make you wait for the CR or AKL.

[Horace Horsecollar]

But the guides are terribel sources of information for good reason. What good would it do to them, while they are trying to sell spots at SSR, to tell you what may be coming? It will only serve to make you wait for the CR or AKL.
dbm20th,

You're suggesting that the DVC Guides know more than the DVC members about future plans for DVC, but that they choose not to tell us what's coming.

In reality, the DVC Guides are not part of the inner circle of people who work out business and financial details and make decisions. They hear rumors. We hear rumors. We hear rumors from them. They hear rumors from us.

[dbm20th]

dbm20th,

You're suggesting that the DVC Guides know more than the DVC members about future plans for DVC, but that they choose not to tell us what's coming.

In reality, the DVC Guides are not part of the inner circle of people who work out business and financial details and make decisions. They hear rumors. We hear rumors. We hear rumors from them. They hear rumors from us.

What I am saying is that it serves them no purpose to tell someone who walks up to them at a sales kiosk that there are new spots coming in better places. Even if they knew that Contemporary was coming, why would they say it to anyone but maybe a current member they are trying to set up for an add-on? They need to sell SSR and not what is coming soon.

I also find it very hard to believe that all guides are just as informed as we are. That doesn't make sense either. They know the clock is ticking on SSR

[rhiannonwales]

ANd as a point to the person who keeps going on about how AKL is cheaper than other deluxes for a reason, its because the rooms are smaller.WL is roughly the same price and the rooms are the same size, but no one is going on about WL being a failure!WL is slightly more probably because they have the boat access to MK and some of the rooms have MK views.Thats it plain and simple.And the $ difference is very slight.

I for one am a fan of AKL, and if DVC built a resort there, i would consider becoming a dvc member.The only reason i never did before was because i didnt like any of the DVC resorts.Believe it or not there are people who like AKL and some who pick it as their fave, including myself, and ive stayed at other places in WDW.
Sherrie

[mitros]

ANd as a point to the person who keeps going on about how AKL is cheaper than other deluxes for a reason, its because the rooms are smaller.WL is roughly the same price and the rooms are the same size, but no one is going on about WL being a failure!WL is slightly more probably because they have the boat access to MK and some of the rooms have MK views.Thats it plain and simple.And the $ difference is very slight.

I for one am a fan of AKL, and if DVC built a resort there, i would consider becoming a dvc member.The only reason i never did before was because i didnt like any of the DVC resorts.Believe it or not there are people who like AKL and some who pick it as their fave, including myself, and ive stayed at other places in WDW.
Sherrie

Really? You do not like ANY of the DVC resorts?? :confused3

[rhiannonwales]

Mitros,
It's not that i HATE any of the other DVC resorts, they just dont grab me enough to plunk down thousands of dollars. I like the idea of DVC, i like knowing that aside from dues ill have a disney vacation every year.And if for some reason i cant go, i can rent the points to cover the cost of the dues at least.

I lived in the Florida Keys as a teen (my dad still lives there) so the idea of going to a place thats designed to look like a place i lived doesnt appeal to me much.I really dont like the Boardwalk/Beach Club at all - again, i live at the Jersey Shore so if i wanted that experience, id stay home. LOL. Saratoga actually doesnt look that bad and neither does VWL but i dont LOVE it enough to want to buy into it ya know?
Sherrie

[mitros]

I don't know if you can compare Disney's Boardwalk with the Jersey shore. We lived in N.J. for 46 years before moving to Florida. We lived in Toms River for 5 years after we were first married, and I think I would rather go to the Boardwalk {Disney's} as opposed to Seaside Heights or Keansburg, or Atlantic City. I don't know, a little safer, I guess. Knifings were a daily ritual at the boardwalk at Seaside when we lived in Toms River. :scared1: :earsboy:

[rhiannonwales]

Well yes Seaside is a place for drunkend 20 somethings and teens. Keansburg is a dive. I was refering to Point Pleasant, which is more family oriented.But still, as a whole i spend my summers avoiding the Jersey Shore, its not interesting to me.I doubt that just by putting a Disney spin on it i would start liking it again.And as a point i have been to the Boardwalk area of Disney.It IS cleaner and safer.It just doesnt appeal to me much.Same way that a lot of people dont like AK park.To each their own i say.
Sherrie

[Dznefreek]

I saw this today at the entrance to Bonnet Creek Resort and Buena Vista Dr.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a155/wdw4me1/100_5952Medium.jpg

[colleen costello]

Boardwalk is the "Disney clean" version of the Jersey shore, just like Port Orleans French Quarter is the cleaner version of Bourbon Street... No murders or smell of urine, just the fun stuff :) I like the sanitized versions of these places best! Especially on vacation :)

[dbm20th]

Boardwalk is the "Disney clean" version of the Jersey shore, just like Port Orleans French Quarter is the cleaner version of Bourbon Street... No murders or smell of urine, just the fun stuff :) I like the sanitized versions of these places best! Especially on vacation :)

:rotfl2: