Disney Cruise Line Onboard Booking UPDATE!!

[SpectroMagic*o*]

Such a wise move in their part...makes me wanna book another one onboard even tho I would never normally do a cruise 2 yrs in a row!

 

[Snurk71]

I was waiting for someone to come in and blow up this thread. It was too calm and people were respectfully exchanging ideas. Congratulations to you. No, I am not an accountant, but anyone with any business/financial (or for that matter,common sense) can see that if you allow reservations to be moved from cruise to cruise to cruise indefinitely, it creates all kinds of problems with sales projections, receivables, etc. Also, the time it takes to rebook a cruise every time it is changed, well that is a hard labor cost (another line in accounting reports). I am not saying I like the changes only that I understand why Disney would make them. As for your post, well I find it simply dismissive and you only support your opinion by saying, "Accounting for deposits held for a future liability (cruise) is normal and nothing unusual." Not much of an argument, but of course that is simply my non-accountant opinion.

Wow, did I strike a nerve or what. Correcting a bunch a bunch of unfounded speculation is blowing a thread up? Really?

How about this for my argument - I've worked in accounting for 20+ years and have served (and currently serve) as a CFO (that stands for Chief Financial Officer, by the way) at multiple companies. I'm not saying that to brag, but to establish my credibility and experience in my comments. To use your terms, I think I qualify as someone with some pretty good business/financial sense.

So now I'll say it again - thinking this change was made to improve the balance sheet doesn't make sense as accounting for deposits/future liabilities is commonplace in accounting.

Sorry if that offends you somehow. I didn't look back - were you one that stated this opinion before and that's what struck such a nerve?

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

 

[Magic Fanatic]

Wow, did I strike a nerve or what. Correcting a bunch a bunch of unfounded speculation is blowing a thread up? Really? How about this for my argument - I've worked in accounting for 20+ years and have served (and currently serve) as a CFO (that stands for Chief Financial Officer, by the way) at multiple companies. I'm not saying that to brag, but to establish my credibility and experience in my comments. To use your terms, I think I qualify as someone with some pretty good business/financial sense. So now I'll say it again - thinking this change was made to improve the balance sheet doesn't make sense as accounting for deposits/future liabilities is commonplace in accounting. Sorry if that offends you somehow. I didn't look back - were you one that stated this opinion before and that's what struck such a nerve? Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

So nice of you to post your resume, very impressed. I still completely disagree with you simply dismissing my response as you originally did. I'll simplify it for you. When a reservation is made for a future cruise with unlimited opportunities to move the date further and further out indefinitely over several years then there is additional costs involve to manage the process every time someone updates their reservation. Also, as the number of the "dummy" reservations grow (especially with the now larger fleet) the program grows even larger to manage. By limiting the window for these reservations the company can now project to within 18 months that the sale (the cruise) will either completed and the cash will be received or it will be cancelled, and deposits refunded. So yes, this will lead to more accurate sales projections witch ultimately has a positive effect on the company financials. Sorry, I am not a CFO but as a commercial lender I work with CFO's everyday and know my way around a balance sheet and aged Accounts Receivables reports. There is no way that you cannot admit that by cleaning up this program it will benefit Disney by improving sales projections and ultimately the company bottom line.

 

[Bear3412]

.... There is no way that you cannot admit that by cleaning up this program it will benefit ..... the company bottom line.

Well, yes, .... after they refund all these folks their $ who are cancelling their dummies.

But admittedly that's chump change for them. Of course, I wonder how many dummies exist now. Is that info in the financials/10-K?

TIA

 

[Snurk71]

So nice of you to post your resume, very impressed. I still completely disagree with you simply dismissing my response as you originally did. I'll simplify it for you. When a reservation is made for a future cruise with unlimited opportunities to move the date further and further out indefinitely over several years then there is additional costs involve to manage the process every time someone updates their reservation. Also, as the number of the "dummy" reservations grow (especially with the now larger fleet) the program grows even larger to manage. By limiting the window for these reservations the company can now project to within 18 months that the sale (the cruise) will either completed and the cash will be received or it will be cancelled, and deposits refunded. So yes, this will lead to more accurate sales projections witch ultimately has a positive effect on the company financials. Sorry, I am not a CFO but as a commercial lender I work with CFO's everyday and know my way around a balance sheet and aged Accounts Receivables reports. There is no way that you cannot admit that by cleaning up this program it will benefit Disney by improving sales projections and ultimately the company bottom line.

But that wasn't the comment that I was correcting - that the move could have been made for operational or earnings improvement. That, I could agree with. I personally think it was done as an earnings improvement move - aligning the discount incentive with more frequent travel instead of giving a discount to " will travel again sometime in the future, probably". I actually think it could be a good financial move for them.

I stated that the change wasn't made to improve the balance sheet or because of the difficulty in accounting for the deposits, as was being suggested. The fact that other cruise lines continue to allow longer and/or moving bookings is further evidence that it's not an accounting challenge. That's why I offered my credentials/experience - to help substantiate my comment (since you didn't think my original statement had any basis).

And by the way, these deposits on account would be considered deferred revenue as a future liability - it wouldn't be in the receivables (asset), at least not if properly recorded.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

 

[Magic Fanatic]

But that wasn't the comment that I was correcting - that the move could have been made for operational or earnings improvement. That, I could agree with. I personally think it was done as an earnings improvement move - aligning the discount incentive with more frequent travel instead of giving a discount to " will travel again sometime in the future, probably". I actually think it could be a good financial move for them. I stated that the change wasn't made to improve the balance sheet or because of the difficulty in accounting for the deposits, as was being suggested. The fact that other cruise lines continue to allow longer and/or moving bookings is further evidence that it's not an accounting challenge. That's why I offered my credentials/experience - to help substantiate my comment (since you didn't think my original statement had any basis). And by the way, these deposits on account would be considered deferred revenue as a future liability - it wouldn't be in the receivables (asset), at least not if properly recorded. Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

I now better understand you point and we do agree. I think your original statement, "I'll hope and assume you're not accountants", rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless, I apologize for the over reaction.

 

[deanimal]

Basically what the change boils down to is that if you can afford to cruise with Disney more often than once every 18 months, you're not really affected. If you're like me and need to save up for two or three years to be able to afford it, sorry, no discount for you. I feel very lucky for what I have, being able to go on these trips at all makes me feel so fortunate when so many others are just struggling to get by and I don't feel any resentment for those who can afford to cruise more often than we can. I have to admit, though, that I feel a bit of resentment about the fact that if you can afford to cruise often you get an extra perk but if you can't you get the benefit taken away and now it takes even longer to afford another cruise. We booked onboard for a five day cruise in December 2014 and I'm pretty sure it will be our last. Oh well, we may be too poor for DCL but I'm sure we'll find lots of other fun things to do with the budget we have!

 

[lodge]

I now better understand you point and we do agree. I think your original statement, "I'll hope and assume you're not accountants", rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless, I apologize for the over reaction.

I'd like you to meet my MIL and teach her those words in your last sentence....she doesn't seem to know them!

 

[Bear3412]

...I have to admit, though, that I feel a bit of resentment about the fact that if you can afford to cruise often you get an extra perk but if you can't you get the benefit taken away and now it takes even longer to afford another cruise.....

Good point. And I'll be the one to say it another way.
Those who most need the discount, lost it. Those that least need it retained it.

I always felt DCL had different clientele than some other lines. With the new rules and pricing perhaps the clientele will be shifting.

Flame away if needed.

 

[Magic Fanatic]

I'd like you to meet my MIL and teach her those words in your last sentence....she doesn't seem to know them!

Now that is a funny post, but I must respectfully decline. I have a MIL if my own, don't want anyone else's.

 

[richw2]

Best thing they could have done!! Just like they now controlled resturant reservations at the parks by taking credit cards and charging for no show. Now getting a reservation for dinner is much easier. The real problem is/was abuse!! Just got off the Magic and spoke to a couple that had 5 future reservations, they kept moving. This just drives the prices up for everyone.

Thanks Disney for this welcomed improvement!!

 

[TifffanyD]

Good point. And I'll be the one to say it another way. Those who most need the discount, lost it. Those that least need it retained it. I always felt DCL had different clientele than some other lines. With the new rules and pricing perhaps the clientele will be shifting. Flame away if needed.

I found a lot of the clientele rather snobby... So I think this will actually add to that.

 

[bigvig1130]

Best thing they could have done!! Just like they now controlled resturant reservations at the parks by taking credit cards and charging for no show. Now getting a reservation for dinner is much easier. The real problem is/was abuse!! Just got off the Magic and spoke to c apple that had 5 future reservations, they kept moving. This just drives the prices up for everyone.

Thanks Disney for this welcomed improvement!!

I'm pretty sure it's not the "best" thing they could have done. It was just the easiest. I'm sure it would not have been hard to institute a "1 time only" move policy to keep the abusers at bay. That would also have given a 24 - 36 month window to those that would need it.

I don't consider the restaurant policy the same thing. Of course people who make reservations at a restaurant (or hotels) should be charged. Just like people who book a cruise lose the deposit when they don't go. The comparison you are making is not the same.

As for making it harder to book a cruise, I highly doubt people have been blocked out because of dummy cruises. The dummy bookings are usually made on off peak cruises (to keep the deposit low). And with all of the GT rates that come out, that tells me these cruises are pretty wide open.

I myself made an OBB last month with the plan of going in 2016 (I like others can only afford to go every 2 -3 years, especially since plane fare from CT is outrageous). Maybe I could go more often if they brought back the NY port.

All this will do is cancel many OBB deposits (including my own) which may not be recovered. It will give people time to consider other vacation options (since they will not have a deposit to tie them down).

 

[Snurk71]

I now better understand you point and we do agree. I think your original statement, "I'll hope and assume you're not accountants", rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless, I apologize for the over reaction.

Thank you for that comment - that is very big of you.

And I apologize if I initially came across a little uppity or condescending. People suggesting the change was the accountant's fault and that the accountants should be tarred and feathered (I know no one said that, I'm embellishing/overdramatic for comedic effect) - I felt the need to stand up for my brethren of number crunchers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

 

[slg]

Time will tell what will happen but for a frequent cruiser myself, I still think it takes away perks because I am now unable to use a dummy res for opening day bookings and what they are planning to do now will most likely cause a lot of extra bookings and be even more trouble.

For example, I have a dummy res right now I am waiting to use for the 2015 summer bookings. Once I go on my summer 2014 cruise, I will get another dummy booking, but it will expire dec. 2015. My next cruise is going to be summer 2016, which my 2014 booking won't be eligible for. I will book opening day prices for 2016 when they come out and wait to sail in 2015 and then reshop. I may now keep that booking if it is a better deal. In fact, I may book 2 cruises just to see which one I might get better cabins or a better price on. I have now tied up more cabins at a higher rate for a longer period of time then if I just had the dummy booking I normally had.

Once I reshop my cruise I'll see which one I'm going to keep. I may cancel both and keep the reshopped one.

So I lose opening day prices, cabins are tied up, prices are driven up, and everyone is disgruntled.

I bet a lot of people who cruise often will do that. I also think DCL didn't think it through for creating the 18 month window. 24-26 months would be best for everyone involved.

I really hope they will reconsider this once they see the implications. Of course they might just eliminate the OBB altogether, which is foolish because once you have one, a cast member told me the they are used 90% of the time.
High return. It is much cheaper to keep existing customers happy then continually look for new ones.

Have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Snurk71]

Basically what the change boils down to is that if you can afford to cruise with Disney more often than once every 18 months, you're not really affected.

I disagree with this. Fortunately, I can afford to cruise more often than every 18 months - but I don't know that I want to. With other vacations, WDW trips, DL trips - we're probably an every 2 year minimum cruising family. So next spring I'm sure I'll book on board, and if we happen to cruise again within the next 18 months - I get a bonus discount. But I'm not going to force a cruise I don't want to take, and might not end up cruising for 2-3 years and lose the discount. Oh well...

Sent from my SAMSUNG Note2 using DISBoards

 

[ruadisneyfan2]

If the issue is so many dummy dates clogging up the system & wreak havoc with their "true" stats, why not just offer to sell a certificate like the old "Friends & Family" cards that were issued years ago if one booked onboard? Put code #'s on them (like WDW discount PIN #s) and names so they can't be transferred and give it a 24 month expiration date. Then they'll have a truer picture of occupancy rates instead of popular dummy dates suddenly looking empty at the 75-day mark. To me, 18 mos is kind of soon. We have cruised more often than that but we don't always intend to. Plus, if you prefer a certain week, such as Jersey Week or Christmas vacation, the 24 month expiration would be doable. With 18 months expiration, it would actually force us to cruise in 12 months which isn't always doable.
Between this and the elimination of CC Tiered OBCs, I predict a huge drop in onboard bookings. It's hardly worth it for me to shell out more $ while cruising for minimal future perks.

 

[slg]

Also, being Canadian, if I cancel a cruise, I may lose money as there is a loss with the exchange rates. That is why I usually don't put down deposits I'm not willing to use.

Hmmm. The more I think about this, the crankier I am about it.

It seems that DCL doesn't value its repeat customers as it has been reducing perks for a while now...OBC have been reduced, tours have been reduced, the reception, $25 off $100 purchases in shops, and now the OBB perks which for those of us who dump so much money in Disney really helped, especially for large families like mine who require two cabins.

Will I stop cruising? Probably not, but most likely just get cheaper cabins...or not spend as much on board. I don't know...without a deposit tied up, I may rethink plans, especially if there aren't new and exciting itineraries to go on.

 

[holula]

After thinking about this my main issue is the 18 month period. I have no problem with it expiring. Having no children me and my fiancée always cruise at off peak times. In 2015 we are booked on the Feb 25 cruise on the Wonder. So we would have to cruise before August 28 2016 to get the discount which is peak season unless we do another Jan/Feb cruise. I don't want to cruise in peak season - we usually cruise in January or February and October or November. 18 months is not long enough. 24 months would be much better time wise.

I would have really preferred a "move once only or lose the OBB benefits". I think that would have benefitted Disney more.

 

[Saamh]

I agree with the "move once" idea. I think that would be a good solution.

We've always booked for the date we think we will actually go but from the sound of it, a majority booked dummy dates just to secure the discount. I don't think that was Disney's intent and I can see how it would definitely affect capacity planning with dummy bookings becoming the norm.