Will we ever get a new resort for Couples Only?

[thepoohguy]

Why doesn't Disney jump on this? Every room has only one king bed and it is for couples only. It could have a spa, a nice restaurant, and hot tub suites.

I mean they have a wedding pavilion, why not a couples only resort?

 

[wezee]

Why doesn't Disney jump on this? Every room has only one king bed and it is for couples only. It could have a spa, a nice restaurant, and hot tub suites.

I mean they have a wedding pavilion, why not a couples only resort?

 

[JimmyV]

Won't happen. For the same reason that you won't see an R rated movie coming out of Walt Disney Pictures (as opposed to Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures). To Disney, the "F" word is "Family". I think they expect couples who want to escape the family environment to find solace at the Four Seasons.

 

[thepoohguy]

Won't happen. For the same reason that you won't see an R rated movie coming out of Walt Disney Pictures (as opposed to Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures). To Disney, the "F" word is "Family". I think they expect couples who want to escape the family environment to find solace at the Four Seasons.

Some couples are a Family.

Not to mention, on DCL, they have an adults only beach, and restaurant, and areas on the ship. What would be the difference?

 

[JimmyV]

Yeah. I get that. And two 17 year olds can be a "couple". But Disney isn't going to build an entire resort and then put a "Children not welcome" sign on it. Even V&A has a cut-off at 10 years old. The Disney Cruise ships have 'adult only" dining options, but that is a very small part of very large ships. I can see having "adult only" pools, spas or lounges. But a 1,000 room resort? You won't see it.

"Adult only" is a very tough thing to manage and why would Disney want the headaches. For example, Disney put in the "adult only" restaurants on the cruise ships, but that is not always a good fit. I can understand wanting a restaurant with no kid's menu and screaming 5 year olds. But why can't a family with two parents and a 17 year old and a 15 year old dine there? The teenage children are far closer to being adults than they are to being 5. Issues like this are a constant cause of strife and Disney doesn't need the headache.

One of the differences between WDW and the cruise ships is that adults can, if they want to, go a whole day and hardly ever see a kid. Pool, spa, restaurant, nightclub. You can occupy a whole day child-free. But you can't do that at WDW. As soon as you leave your bubble, there are kids everywhere. You can't go to the parks without seeing kids. And Disney expects that when you visit, you are going to go to the parks. So Disney just doesn't view making a "child-free" environment a priority. As I said, they can throw you a bone and give you a child-free pool, spa, lounge, or restaurant. But the clientele of people who don't want to be in the presence of kids just doesn't exist at WDW in numbers great enough to warrant a whole resort. If people feel that strongly about avoiding kids, they would go some place else. Kind of like someone wanting to go to Paris without encountering any French people. And as I said above, I think the Four Seasons will serve as a largely "adult" community. Ask Disney how the whole adult "Disney Institute" (and Pleasure Island) worked out. Both shuttered.

 

[bookgirl]

I think that fiscally it would be a no go.


Even couples like the resort themming and would stay at the existing resorts regardless of a 'couples only' option.

Plus percentage wise I think most people at disney are families with kids, and any resort would have to be able to be close too or at capacity to make money. So a resort that excludes most of your clientelle would not go over well.


Now if Disney offered a few areas (pools, resturants, etc) at existing resorts that were adult only that could be profitable, but there is never going to be any kind of large scale conversion.


I might go visit an kid free area, but there are too many things I like at the regular resorts to give up for that perk on a whole vacation.

 

[moviegirl11]

Yeah. I get that. And two 17 year olds can be a "couple". But Disney isn't going to build an entire resort and then put a "Children not welcome" sign on it. Even V&A has a cut-off at 10 years old. The Disney Cruise ships have 'adult only" dining options, but that is a very small part of very large ships. I can see having "adult only" pools, spas or lounges. But a 1,000 room resort? You won't see it.

"Adult only" is a very tough thing to manage and why would Disney want the headaches. For example, Disney put in the "adult only" restaurants on the cruise ships, but that is not always a good fit. I can understand wanting a restaurant with no kid's menu and screaming 5 year olds. But why can't a family with two parents and a 17 year old and a 15 year old dine there? The teenage children are far closer to being adults than they are to being 5. Issues like this are a constant cause of strife and Disney doesn't need the headache.

Just curious if you're paraphrasing from something Disney has said on this idea or if you're just speculating that this would be the reason they wouldn't do it. If that's the case, my own speculation would be that it is less about the "headache" of enforcing the age restrictions and more about setting up a resort that eliminates families/kids (and their business) entirely. My guess (and that's all it is, really) is that there are other options like Saratoga Springs that lure adults looking for a more serene experience well enough that WDW wouldn't invest money in a resort that will limit the kinds of guests that can stay there.

It'd be interesting if they experimented by taking one resort and trying it out for a little while to see how business does.

Poohguy, I like your comment that some couples are a family. I agree.

 

[sassyredhead]

Now if Disney offered a few areas (pools, resturants, etc) at existing resorts that were adult only that could be profitable, but there is never going to be any kind of large scale conversion.


I might go visit an kid free area, but there are too many things I like at the regular resorts to give up for that perk on a whole vacation.

I agree. Take it one step further . . . devote one building at a moderate resort to king-only rooms and designate that building's quiet pool to adult only. I could see this at, say, CSR, which some folks feel is a more "mature" resort anyway. I could see this being popular with couples celebrating an anniversary, newlyweds, etc. I know I would book once our bird leaves the nest!

 

[cluvsdisney]

It's never going to happen. It's not very realistic any where but especially not at Disney. Except for a handful of things, the entire property is set up for kids. Off the top of my head: there are a couple of tours with age requirements, Jelly Rolls, Atlantic Dance Hall, Rix and V&A if you are under 10. I am not sure where else kids can't go when they are Disney. I'd settle for maybe an adult floor or section knowing it's going to be the most inconvenient location, a couple of later seatings at restaurants on a rotating basis, one hot tub by the pool without kids swimming & splashing and maybe a resort lounge here or there to have a drink without sitting next to a 10 year old.

 

[2010_Bride]

I agree. Take it one step further . . . devote one building at a moderate resort to king-only rooms and designate that building's quiet pool to adult only. I could see this at, say, CSR, which some folks feel is a more "mature" resort anyway. I could see this being popular with couples celebrating an anniversary, newlyweds, etc. I know I would book once our bird leaves the nest!

DH and I would book there
I also agree with the PP who mentioned that couples ARE families

 

[JimmyV]

...my own speculation would be that it is less about the "headache" of enforcing the age restrictions and more about setting up a resort that eliminates families/kids (and their business) entirely.

I'm not sure I see the difference. Once you decide to go "adult only", you have to decide what constitutes and adult and what constitutes a "kid". There would be all sorts of grief if Disney tried to tell parents that they could stay at a resort with their 19 year old daughter, but that thier 17 year old son is not welcome. Or maybe they would tell the parents that neither of their kids are welcome. And when they get to the resort, they see a couple at the check-in counter and the husband is 19 and the wife is 17. In order to have an "adult only" or "couples only" resort, you have to draw lines. This is not the type of family hospitality that makes Disney famous.

 

[moviegirl11]

On a related note, in this hypothetical (unlikely) adult-only resort, I'd love it if the pool were Neverland themed, with a water slide and a bar that sells icy, fruity drinks for those of us grown-ups who won't grow up.

 

[jakeybake]

Would never happen.

They would never limit an entire resorts room availability to just couples, when couples will stay at any resort on property already.

As it stands now Disney World is the number one honeymoon destination in the world and you can't get more "couples" than a new bride and groom.

J

 

[moviegirl11]

I'm not sure I see the difference. Once you decide to go "adult only", you have to decide what constitutes and adult and what constitutes a "kid". There would be all sorts of grief if Disney tried to tell parents that they could stay at a resort with their 19 year old daughter, but that thier 17 year old son is not welcome. Or maybe they would tell the parents that neither of their kids are welcome. And when they get to the resort, they see a couple at the check-in counter and the husband is 19 and the wife is 17. In order to have an "adult only" or "couples only" resort, you have to draw lines. This is not the type of family hospitality that makes Disney famous.

The difference is in the parenthesis and the rest of what I said, which you didn't quote. It's about eliminating business. Creating a place that specifically keeps certain people and their money out might not make sense for a place like WDW. Enforcing the rules is as simple as every other adults-only vacation resort (See Sandals). The lines would be drawn at reservation, not at check in, whether it be no kids under twelve or eighteen or whatever.

I think it's more likely that Disney would weigh the pros and cons from a business/financial end before anything else. Hospitality is important to them but so is maintaining and increasing their business. I believe that if they thought they stood to gain a lot of adult business by setting up a resort made entirely for grown-ups and pitched to couples looking for a romantic escape, I think they would do it. The fact that they haven't suggests to me that they don't see it as a smart investment.

As for family hospitality, there are adult families out there. Parents with grown kids or, as mentioned, couples who are a completed family of two. So family hospitality applies, it would just be age restricted. That might rub people the wrong way though, which I do see as being a factor somewhat but not as much as the business/financial aspect.

 

[Lewisc]

I'm not sure I see the difference. Once you decide to go "adult only", you have to decide what constitutes and adult and what constitutes a "kid". There would be all sorts of grief if Disney tried to tell parents that they could stay at a resort with their 19 year old daughter, but that thier 17 year old son is not welcome. Or maybe they would tell the parents that neither of their kids are welcome. And when they get to the resort, they see a couple at the check-in counter and the husband is 19 and the wife is 17. In order to have an "adult only" or "couples only" resort, you have to draw lines. This is not the type of family hospitality that makes Disney famous.

The OP is talking about a couples resort. King bedded rooms. That suggests an occupancy limit of 2. Minimum age of 18 (21?) Parents would be allowed to include their 19 year old daughter or 17 year old son.

I don't think there would be enough demand to limit an entire resort to adults.

Disney is adding family suites (AoA), added pirate rooms (CBR) and is rumored to be adding Royal (Princess themed) at Port Orleans.

Disney could devote a building to adults/couples. Logistically you'd probably limit occupancy to double and have a minimum age of 21. I don't think Disney would want to have a block of rooms that have those kinds of limits. I don't think a dedicated building in a moderate resort is the kind of experience the OP is looking for.

 

[AndreaDM]

I think a wing or a building is a great idea! They could do it in such a way that wouldn't scream "no kids allowed" but like a pp said, have ALL the rooms in that wing be one king bed only. I guess you'd get the occassional single parent with one child staying there, but I'd bet mostly adults would be booking those rooms.

 

[roomthreeseventeen]

Seriously, I love the idea of an "adult only" resort. A couples only resort, not so much. What would be the purpose of discriminating against single adults?

I think it might well happen in the next 10 years. Several surveys that Disney has put out have mentioned the possibility.

 

[hannahdrewmom]

The problem I see with this is that it isn't that big of a draw. For DH and myself when we go by ourselves we like a certain hotel. We would not change our hotel choice just based on the fact that one building at a random hotel was for couples. I definitely would not give up BWI for CSR even if it was for a king bed. I think it would just limit the people who could and would want to book there.

 

[yarlenna]

I would LOVE a couples only resort at Disney. I do think it would work. I would pay IF it is very nice and not kiddy. Sign me up

 

[bumbershoot]

The OP is talking about a couples resort. King bedded rooms. That suggests an occupancy limit of 2.

King rooms everywhere I've ever booked have an occupancy of 3. Which until recently has worked well for our co-sleeping family of 3!