Do You think DISNEY has gone down hlll the last few years?

[Mamu]

I don't think it has.

I think Disney tried to please everyone, visitors, workers and stockholders.

As far as restaurants go, the QS offer more healithier choices then did a few years ago, TS some are good, some fair. Some of the TS I love years ago have been put on my "Do Not Return List" over the years chefs change, menus change. Some for the better some for the worst.

Disney does a wonderful job on the upkeep of the parks. Some of the QS areas can become very messy during the day, but I can't blame Disney for guest who just leave their messes and walk away.

Disney is also always upgrading their resorts.

Disney does change there rides and shows every so often, some for the better, some for the worst. (yet that is my opinion) Other may love the changes.

My one concern is some of the complaints going on about CL. This is a level you pay extra for, the service you are paying for should never be comprised, as to making ADR, or drinks and food being available as advertised. Because someone before you took all the drinks, food or desserts should not mean that you should do without. I find this totally unacceptable, my family do not abuse this service, and because someone before us did we should not be punished.

[KYCruiseCrazy]

Originally Posted by TDC Nala

You still have to pay the 18%. However, the concern mentioned was that because the server knows you are a TIW member and are going to be paying 18% tip automatically there would be no incentive for good service. If the server does not know you have TIW until you pay the check, that problem doesn't arise (unless you are a party of six or more, which would pay the 18% anyway). If you then get bad service, speak to a manager or don't use the TIW.

Unless the service is great I don't tip. A tip is a way to say "Thanks for the great service". If the service sux, then should I have to give you have tip?? I think now. We saw this many times back in 2005 when they paid the tip as part of DDP. The quality of service started going down noticeably during the "Hurricane" free dinning. We went to WDW twice in 2005, that year and our 2nd trip in Dec was noticeable of who/what the CM's were not wanting to "earn" their tip when they got it automatically.(part of the reason WDW stopped paying the tip)

It seems since the ONLY was WDW can get the masses to show up at parks that charge $14 to park. $79(now $82) to enter a park and expect the same level of service that has made WDW what it is!! WDW price increases are going to cause the "other" Orlando" parks to jack up their prices too.

It's amazing to see how many company's out there that has "large" profit margins, yet they keep holding back from adding on more staff. It seems like they are more interested in what the shareholders want, then the quality of service.

[Purseval]

Originally Posted by KYCruiseCrazy

It seems since the ONLY was WDW can get the masses to show up at parks that charge $14 to park. $79(now $82) to enter a park and expect the same level of service that has made WDW what it is!! WDW price increases are going to cause the "other" Orlando" parks to jack up their prices too.

I think you are forgetting about inflation. In 1971 dollars that $82 would be $14.95. A full day at MK back then would have cost about $10 for an adult. So it would be higher but not outrageously higher and there is also a lot more to choose from.

Note: One can only estimate how much a day at MK would be because the pricing structure was actually pretty complicated back then. It was $3.50 to get in the gate, $5.75 with an 11-ride package then you also bought ticket books with rides from A to E class.

[flicx]

Originally Posted by Purseval

I think you are forgetting about inflation. In 1971 dollars that $82 would be $14.95. A full day at MK back then would have cost about $10 for an adult. So it would be higher but not outrageously higher and there is also a lot more to choose from.

How is that not outrageously higher.If it cost 49.5% higher?($10.00 vs.$14.95) So if you go to buy a new car and it cost $10,000 and the salesman said hey I got one that isn't too much higher only $14,950 you would think there isn't that much difference?

[Purseval]

Originally Posted by flicx

How is that not outrageously higher.If it cost 49.5% higher?($10.00 vs.$14.95) So if you go to buy a new car and it cost $10,000 and the salesman said hey I got one that isn't too much higher only $14,950 you would think there isn't that much difference?

Because the first car would be nice but have a standard transmission, no air conditioning and 1971 technology while the other would be loaded and comply with all the government regulations that have been put into place since the first model came out. If WDW had been as big in 1971 as it was today I doubt it still would have been $10 to get in.

BTW, speaking of cars -- a sampling:

1971 Dodge Charger $3,579
2011 Dodge Charger $25,000-$41,000 base price depending on engine/suspension

1972 Corvette $5472
2011 Corvette $49,900 - $112,050

1972 Cadillac coupe De Ville $6168
2011 Cadillac CTS-V $69,785

[JLTraveling]

Originally Posted by Pineapple Whip

There is a subtle decline in quality, but downhill isn't the word, I think surviving is. I noticed the decline after 2001. This area was hit very hard by a knock in tourism, brought about by obvious events, hurricanes, etc... Frankly, the time frame between 2001 and this year, vacations were the last thing on many people's minds.

This. If you think back to the period immediately after 9/11, all of the Orlando-area parks had to implement sudden and drastic changes to try to avoid layoffs--cutting park hours, placing a large number of rides, shops and restaurants into "seasonal closures," letting go of some of the maintenance and cleanliness standards. It was a desperate time for everyone, and acceptance of massive changes in all areas of life was the new reality, and even considered our patriotic duty. Incidentally, that's also when bag checks were implemented--something that Disney had said they would never do because it sets an adversarial tone for the day, but it had to be done for safety, so we accepted it.

IMO, the problem developed when tourism rebounded, but standards didn't. We had all been trained to accept a new normal, one that didn't include pristine bathrooms and gourmet food and jugglers and an utter lack of burned-out light bulbs. Why should Disney have returned to pre-9/11 standards if we the visiting public had come to accept lesser quality? This gave them a golden opportunity to increase profit margins. Not that it's solely Disney, it's a general attitude throughout the tourist sector...and don't even get me started on the security theater at airports...full body scans? Really? But that's a different topic.

Of course quality has gone downhill. We've learned to accept this messed up "new normal" throughout our lives, and Disney would be stupid not to take advantage of it. Until we collectively wake up, that's how things are going to be everywhere.

[bicker]

Originally Posted by JLTraveling

This. If you think back to the period immediately after 9/11 ... IMO, the problem developed when tourism rebounded, but standards didn't. We had all been trained to accept a new normal, one that didn't include pristine bathrooms and gourmet food and jugglers and an utter lack of burned-out light bulbs.

Sorry, but I think folks blame 9/11 too often for things. I'm glad you mentioned "burned-out light bulbs" specifically, because I remember discussing that specific issue in discussion threads on radp in 1997-1998. Things have never been perfect at the parks. And conditions vary up and down over the decades. Is today the best or worst is has ever been? Probably neither, but even with cyclical characteristics, there must have been a point when the extremes on both ends are reached, after which things head back in the other direction.

"IMO, the problem" is that people try to compare things in time that are most properly compared in space. By that I mean that the meaningful comparison to apply to WDW is the comparison to Universal, to Paramount parks, to Six Flags, to Las Vegas, etc., since we travel by car, train or airplane from home to destination, instead of traveling from "now" to "the past".

[justice4all77]

I feel that disney hasn't really added anything that great in recent years. I feel that the parks are still stuck in 1998-2002 mode. Universal added a huge new themed land that has literally brought them back to life. Disney must be planning something to compete because that is what they need. Sure they have added small attractions but none of them compare to classics such as splash mountain, pirates, etc. Hands down Disney needs more attractions. No more new hotels and restaurants. Don't get me wrong those are great! but a brand new themed land would be amazing. Maybe another giant attraction like a roller coaster. I know Disney is not a coaster park like a six flags but having one sure wouldn't hurt and would be good for change.

I do agree with the poster who says Disney is going downhill but I do have faith that the imaginneers are planning bigger, greater new things for the years ahead. I hope they are not focusing all attention to the expansion of fantasyland to meet the needs of larger guests. Disney needs to pick it up and come up with that wow factor that they delieverd with Tower of Terror and Mission Space and Soarin. More Rides!! Bigger Attractions!! Let's go Disney! There is a great big BEAUTIFUL tomorrow!!

[bicker]

Universal's "huge new themed land" ends up seeming rather anemic from what I've read. It's not insignificant, but I think (1) you're giving it way too much credit given what it is, and (2) they just added it - when one park just adds something it becomes the park that just added something. Someone has to be last. In reality, Universal was just playing "catch up" with Disney, having greatly expanded Asia.

[Planogirl]

The point is that Universal spent a lot of money giving people something new. I think that many are hoping that Disney will do the same.

There is also nothing wrong with being nostalgic. Some things were better at one time and some things are better now. That's just simple logic. Whether WDW was better at one time or not definitely depends on who is looking at the then and now and what it is that they're looking for.

[Snape]

If you just started visiting in the early 90's things are fine and dandy. If you've been visiting since prior to that, things have gotten worse. The "entitlement generation" has a lot to do with the decline though. It's all about me, me, me and what's free, free, free. I'd go back to staying on site if Disney hiked the prices and stopped with the "free crap."

[Dan Murphy]

Originally Posted by justice4all77

.....Universal added a huge new themed land that has literally brought them back to life....

Remember, IoA added one attraction, along with appropriate stores, and rethemed two older attractions to fit the new HP look. They did not add three new ones. Was changing Alien Encounter to Stitch major?

[MollyMcDaniel]

We have been visiting the parks on a regular basis for 8 years. Prior to that it was a trip here or there. I honestly have not noticed a decline. As a previous poster mentioned, we now have the Magical Express...which at the time of its inception was only supposed to run for a year and they continued it indefinitly. I'm not a savvy business person, but I feel like the reason it was continued was to prevent the masses from renting a car and having the ability to easily exit the DW area and enjoy food, entertainment and shopping elsewhere. Fine by me...I have never left Disney property. It is an escape from reality.....my family loves the immersion. Don't have to worry about driving anywhere. I am taking my 6 yr old daughter down for a quick 4-nighter on Thur. I have no hesitation or worries because I know that Disney will take care of me. We are DVC members and truly love all things Disney.

Also on a side note. My mom and dad were with us on a trip several years ago. My dad has since passed away, but at the time he was battling cancer and developed pneumonia while stay at OKW. My mom called the front desk to ask about transportation to a hospital and within minutes the paramedics and resort manager were at the door. She did not ask for this, they just sent them over. It was determined that my dad would be ok, no need for the hospital and that his Dr. from home called in a perscription which was delivered. The resort took care of everything...and my parents never received a bill. They also received twice daily check-up phone calls from management, allowed my parents to stay longer in the villa and helped my mom schedule a later flight home. That is service!

[bicker]

Originally Posted by Planogirl

The point is that Universal spent a lot of money giving people something new.

The point is that Disney did too.

Originally Posted by Planogirl

There is also nothing wrong with being nostalgic.

It depends: Nostalgia that evokes positive feelings is good; nostalgia that evokes negative feelings is bad. Because nostalgia is not reflective of current reality, its only constructive value is the positive feelings it evokes. Unfortunately, the bias of nostalgia, the way it is typically practiced, is against the positive feelings and toward the negative feelings. It's essentially, counter-productive, overall.

Originally Posted by Planogirl

Some things were better at one time and some things are better now. That's just simple logic.

Absolutely, and that's really the problem with nostalgia, the way it is typically practiced. It generally obscures memory of the negative things and exaggerates memory of positive things. Essentially, it fosters negativity, cynicism, pessimism, and fatalism; and does little to highlight the reasons for hope, optimism, anticipation, and satisfaction.

[Snape]

What new things has Disney done? The only huge projects completed recently I'm aware of are new DVC's (which is ridiculous). They working on a new Fantasyland area but we'll see exactly how that goes. I'd be willing to bet the original plans are scaled down to save money.