Should Disney offer more for on site guest?

[IrishNYC]

A bit of a contradiction there, don't you think?

Guys, the math is pretty simple. Going from 52,000 a day to 38,000 a day cost Disney roughly 1.5 million. Room rates on 30,000 rooms to cover that amount would be $50 a night -- but because they would have a are increase for all the time, not just the limited days, the break-even number would be half that. So Disney could do it just by charging a consistent rate for their rooms instead of giving discounts, and if they advertised exclusivity, they wouldn't need to.

The other thing is that 50 million people went to the parks last year, but roughly 35 million of them came from the resorts. You can't do any kind of FOL for resort guests because 70 percent of the guests come from the resorts -- the FOL line would be longer than the standby.

I wonder how many of those resort stays are "throwaways" full of people really staying off site but willing to pay to waste a room in order to hog 60 days FP+ they aren't really entitled to.

 

[BugsDaddy]

I am not sure why staying onsite at a Disney resort needs to be considered luxurious? I think that Disney, more so than a lot of popular vacation destinations have put in value options for guests who cannot afford the higher priced rooms. I think the cost of these rooms (especially in value season) are close to what you might pay offsite, albeit the offsite rooms might be better. However, you have location and free transportation and other perks for staying at Disney so it tends to balance itself out IMO.

As far as paying more to get "front of the line access", Disney already has that in place and has for a while now. They have VIP and private tour options that anyone can purchase that will give people special access to skipping the lines at rides. It is very expensive but if someone is willing to pay it, I don't look down upon them, for that. People are allowed to spend their money on what is important to them.

 

[thiabelle]

If you want FoL perk and the VIP experience, you can always swing for the personal Disney VIP tour guide. I think it amounts to about $350-$500 per hour with a minimum of 6 hours, but you get to go to the front of the line at the attractions.

Just as an FWIW... When you pay for a VIP guide you do NOT get FOTL access. The guide is like a living, breathing Fastpass. You wait in the Fastpass line. Of course there are other benefits but completely skipping the line is not one of them. At Universal it's a different story!

 

[mevelandry]

WDW shouldn't ever offer front of the lines to resort guest (i say this being a resort guest) its not fair to those who can't afford the luxury.

Well... WDW is a business. And there is nothing "fair" with business. Usually, when you pay more, you get more.

 

[disneydude365]

Well... WDW is a business. And there is nothing "fair" with business. Usually, when you pay more, you get more.

Seriously? It's disneu they offer what they offer and they won't ever offer front of the lines for simply staying resort
Enjoy what they offer or go buy VIP 200$ per hour minimum 4 hours

Disney keeps things as fair as they can

 

[Happyinwonerland]

As an off site guest, I just don't think disney offers enough incentive for me to stay on site. If staying on site got me something super special, like a special meet and greet area, or special parade and fireworks viewing, or even a dining discount, it might be worth it. As it stands, early booking windows and sub par transit haven't convinced me. If I could justify a monorail deluxe, maybe I'd enjoy it, but $440+ a night just ain't worth it to me.

 

[mevelandry]

Seriously? It's disneu they offer what they offer and they won't ever offer front of the lines for simply staying resort
Enjoy what they offer or go buy VIP 200$ per hour minimum 4 hours

Disney keeps things as fair as they can

Hey, We're just having a conversation here, there is no need to be defensive.

If I did not feel like I was getting enough, I wouldn't stay there at all.

But everybody likes having "more bang for your bucks".

And we don't have to have the same opinion about everything. We are just dreaming/brainstorming out loud.

 

[disneydude365]

Hey, We're just having a conversation here, there is no need to be defensive.

If I did not feel like I was getting enough, I wouldn't stay there at all.

But everybody likes having "more bang for your bucks".

And we don't have to have the same opinion about everything. We are just dreaming/brainstorming out loud.

Sorry but this debate is something I face weekly with people I know so, just a nerve I guess lol

If course everyone has their own opinions which is fine

 

[kaytieeldr]

As an off site guest, I just don't think disney offers enough incentive for me to stay on site. If staying on site got me something super special, like a special meet and greet area, or special parade and fireworks viewing, or even a dining discount, it might be worth it. As it stands, early booking windows and sub par transit haven't convinced me. If I could justify a monorail deluxe, maybe I'd enjoy it, but $440+ a night just ain't worth it to me.

If the WDW-provided transit is sub-par, just curious what you would consider par? To what transit system are you comparing it?

 

[Happyinwonerland]

If the WDW-provided transit is sub-par, just curious what you would consider par? To what transit system are you comparing it?

Maybe have more buses, more often, less stops. People wait forever to stand on crowded buses to chauffer them back to their hotels. Iger made like 45 million last year. If they can afford to pay him that salary, they can afford to improve the experience for guests. More buses, fewer stops would help a lot, and would make on site stays seem more appropriate to people like me. I drive, so I don't have to worry about transit in parks. But if the buses weren't so crowded, on site might be more appealing.

 

[cruisingtwins]

I think the perks should come in the shape of better hotels if people are paying 500 a night they should get the same kind of ameneties of any other 500$ a night hotel.

 

[dansdad]

I think the perks should come in the shape of better hotels if people are paying 500 a night they should get the same kind of ameneties of any other 500$ a night hotel.

I have a feeling that If one of those other $500 per night hotels was located where the Grand Floridian or the Beach Club were located, they would then charge $1000 a night.

 

[cruisingtwins]

I've stayed in expensive hotels in premium locations none of them lookdd like a holiday inn.

 

[hannaconda]

Wow. Just wow. Maybe "elitist" isn't the right word. I'm thinking more like "asinine". I'm sure Walt would be rolling in his grave if something like that ever happened.

The answer to the massive crowd problems doesn't lie in restricting access to those who can't afford to pay the already over-inflated Disney property prices by tacking on more privileged fees. The whole Disney "Happiest Place On Earth" concept is to make the parks a magical experience for EVERYONE, not just those that can afford to shell out another couple grand under a revamped process to exclude those who can't. Since the inception of the Magic Kingdom, Disney has added a new park to WDW about every 10 years with the last being AK in 1998. As attendance grew annually, each new park served to redistribute the massive hordes to lessen (at least temporarily) the crowds at the other parks. It's now been 17 years since the last park addition (not counting the Fantasyland expansion). This may sound as asinine as the weekday park exclusivity comments that I read, but a fifth theme park seems long overdue. In any case, hopefully the Disney organization and it's much lauded team of Imagineers can continually come up with solutions that remain true to Walt's original vision and not in a manner that inevitably would make a WDW vacation for many hard working families become an absolute impossibility.

In regard to the OP's original question, the one thing that I would like to see is additional FP+ included when you purchase the park hopper option. My suggestion is that you can still only use three at one park, but perhaps have a couple added per day to reserve at a second park. Right now it seems that the additional cash outlay for the park hopper is only advantageous when you have dinner reservations at another park or want to, for example, go the the MK in the morning and catch the fireworks at Epcot that evening. Just my 2 cents.

"Asinine" is what Walt would say if he was alive today and saw how his company was being ran.

 

[Nancyg56]

Now, I have read (only once. Never done it, myself) that supposedly club level quests get to make more than 3 FP selections. (Going from memory, from the one and only time I saw it mentioned, I think the poster said they got to make 5.)

No, not possible. What happened to me was a CL CM gave me a FP for an attraction that she had set up while we were chatting. Totally spontaneous, total pixie dust. I never saw it coming, never asked, and I doubt she would have gifted me if I had.

 

[Nancyg56]

Now, if anybody from Disney is watching the thread, I would like to make a suggestion for Disney to provide some method for people who are staying in different resorts, to use the other resort's pools. I would have no trouble paying extra for a "pool hopping ticket".

(I have a trip booked in March. Mom and I in Contemporary. Brother, his wife, and 4 kids in a cabin. We're scheduled to have breakfast every morning in Chef Mickey's. But that may be the only time his new family will see me or "grandma". It would be nice if I could spend an hour in the pool with them. But not nice enough to justify booking them two rooms in Contemporary.)

I doubt this will happen. Pools are one main reason folks choose a resort, and it is rough enough to get your "spot" without competing with people from other resorts all scampering for a char or that elusive table. To be honest, there are plenty of common areas for a visit in every resort, and the Contempory is no exception. My family has spent time just relaxing while waiting for a meal, and the views were spectacular

 

[goofy4tink]

Sapphire Falls will be priced similarly to Cabana Bay. There's no indication that Universal intends to build any more "deluxe" resorts at this time. And they do sell the access. Anybody can purchase Express Pass at Universal if they want to use it. They could do something like offer a discount on it.

Absolutely agree! I've purchased FoTL as a day guest at US/IoA. But, you get just one attraction....with the resort FoTL, you get as many rides as you want. I think it would be terrific if those staying at the less expensive US/IoA resorts could buy the resort FoTL for a discount...maybe charge half of what non-resort guests pay yet give them the same perk as the other on-site guests get...as many rides on each attraction as you want. But, it will cost them.

There are three. The Swan, the Dolphin and the DTD Hilton.

I'm really liking the "all parks should be closed to everyone except Disney resort guests on the weekdays." and maybe let in just the deluxe resort guests on Tuesdays, and DVC on Wednesdays. who could run this type of business while offering that kind of perk?

I can get behind this....I own DVC, they are considered deluxe resorts, so I get two days in the parks.......

AKL & Kidani share and that makes sense. BC/YC share and also makes sense. These are right next to each other. I think the worst sharing situation is with the MK resorts. We stayed at GF last August. And GF was always on all routes the last pick up, so going to parks for rope drop you stand luckily it's only for 2 parks since you have monorail for MK & Epcot.

That will never change unless the roadways in that area are changed. There is a turn that the buses just can't make...so they have to pickup/dropoff at the GF last. Yes, it's a pain, but it is what it is.

So much point missing going on here. Let me try to address the arguments:

1) There's nothing inherently anti-Disney or elitist about limiting access to their resorts -- organizations do it all the time. I can't go drop my anchor at CastAway Cay and hang out for the afternoon -- I can't go and hang out on Beaches' chaise lounges in Negril just because I also happen to be vacationing there. I can't got shoot a round at Torrey Pines. Limiting access is something humans do on a regular basis, and there'd be nothing wrong with Disney saying that they wanted to limit access to their parks to the people who show them the most loyalty (or give them the most money) -- the people who stay in the resorts. I mean honestly, why is everyone who stays along I-Drive or US92 entitled to the same experience at the park as someone who paid three times as much, and gave the money directly to Disney as opposed to Days Inn. It's nice that Disney does it that way, but there'd be nothing at all wrong with them saying they want to start giving BIG rewards (exclusive access) to the people who have shown them the most loyalty. And as much as we may think otherwise, loyalty is demonstrated by spending money -- real money, not on souvenirs or dinners, but by spending large nightly fees at on-site hotels. I think it's great that a family of four can spend $400 for a day at Disney while staying off site -- but I fail to see why Disney should view them equally valuable as the family that spends $400 a day and $500 (or more. Or a lot more) a night at the resorts.

2) This is all about crowds. Right now Disney is keeping the resorts filled, but they are doing it with discounts, either free dining or rooms. But attendance is increasing at a rate of 6% (or 2300 a day), yet the discounts keep coming -- those people coming aren't seeing the incentive of just staying onsite for the reasons that have been mentioned -- DME or EMH or even an extra 30 days to make FP reservations. What Disney needs to do is inspire those people to stay without the discounts -- or even at higher prices. That's how they maximize their investments in their hotels. Fast Passes are an enigma to most people, so offering a couple extras won't help much. But promising them limited crowds will, because in the end it's the only complaint most people have -- the lines are too long, and everything has a line. FP is only about reducing the amount of time one spends in a line. So if Disney wanted to maximize their profits (and their customer experience) they could limit the availability of access to the park to those who have shown a willingness to be loyal to Disney -- find the balance point where the increase in resort even matches or surpasses the loss in admittance cost -- and everyone would be happy (at least the report people would). That would be as big a selling point as one could find -- and they could charge appropriately for it. And as for the locals most locals use their passes on weekends -- they are already blacked out of holidays. No reason for them to change. And the off site people still have USO and Sea World and Legoland and Lake Eola and the beach to occupy their non-access days. And if you staggered the other parks -- make only two days a week limited for Epcot, AK and HS, then you'd give the off-siters a chance to hit those parks and save their MK days. And for the most part resort guests would avoid the MK on non-limited days, so that might make the weekend crowds smaller. Along with that, come up with a few more hard-ticket events so the off-siters have a chance for limited crowds. But the other point of it is that in all likelihood, the off-siters would covet when the resort guest have and make the chance to stay onsite more appealing.

This isn't about elitism -- it's about Disney giving everyone a reason to become one of its best customers. I fail to see what is wrong or elitist about that.

These boards of full of comments such as 'OMG...what would Walt say about this'. Walt Disney had an entirely different view than what you are suggesting. He felt that once you left the resorts, and entered the parks, everyone should be treated the same...off-site, on-site, didn't matter. It's at the resort level that things could be different. Deluxe resorts have better theming, better pools, better park access to at least one park. The amenities are nicer..etc. At the moderates, you get nice theming, nice pools...but lesser than the deluxes. The values...pretty much okay but not nearly as nice as the others. But the are more than 'serviceable'! A deluxe resort, at WDW, is not meant to be the same as a 5 star deluxe resort elsewhere. This is Disney's way of catagorizing the resorts....it isn't comparable with other hotels around the world.

I think you're wrong about that. i think that if you knew the parks would be at .72 of usual capacity -- which meant more rides and likely less crowds, people would make the trade off. You might stay at Pop instead of a higher level hotel, but you'd have more fun in the parks.

19 million people next year translates to 52,000 a day. That's a perpetual crowd -- the average daily 10 years ago was 38,000 -- and as much as people lament it, Disney's got no real plans to build a new park or add new rides or do anything that would dissipate those crowds. So if you're asking what I'd like to see happen, I'd like to see the crowd levels drop. To me, the best way to do that is to raise the resort rates at the same time you raise their benefits so Disney can afford (from a shareholder and profit maximization standpoint, not a right-and-just standpoint) to reduce admission levels at the parks.

The combined attendance at WDW in '13 was 50 million. 18.6 of that was MK, so it makes up 38 percent of attendance, with the other three parks splitting 62 percent. If there are 100K people in the resorts, you can guess that 38K of them go to the MK. And on the exclusive days, that would be what you could count on. That's a better day at the park than one with 52.

In terms of volume there'd be 165 or so days of limited access, with park traffic down 28 percent during that time. But they'd be getting higher resort rates for all 365 days, so the question is at what point that number balances out.

I do want to ask this -- what exactly is the objection to this for those who stay at the resorts. i understand why people who stay off site wouldn't like it, but what is the downside for people who only stay at the resorts? Is it just that the discounts would go away and therefore it would be more expensive? As I've read through this thread, that's the response I don't understand. Fewer people should mean better time and I guess I just don't see the downside.

My objection (I have never stayed off-site for any of my more than 50 stays in Orlando for WDW) is that it is, in fact, elitist. And that isn't what Walt Disney wanted to have happen. There are plenty of policy changes happening that are probably very contrary to what he would have liked. Disney used to offer some really good discounts....not so much anymore. Why? They don't need to. They are filling enough rooms to make a huge profit. We see many, many people saying that if there is no free dining offered, they can't afford to go. Well.....if the rooms are filled, no need to offer it. Disney just doesn't feel the need to reward people. I own DVC..at two resorts! But I have to tell you...many of us that own DVC sometimes feel like the 'red-headed step-child' at Disney. We get little for our loyalty. But, we still go!
You know, going in, what you are going to get and how much it is going to cost you. There are times of the year that crowds are very manageable. If you go at Christmas, you have to know that you are going to have a ton of company. If you don't like it, don't go.

If Disney chose to let us buy FP+ pkgs, fine. I would probably buy one. But, I very much doubt that Disney is going to offer more FP+, across the board, to deluxe resort guests. Not without raising room rates. You get nothing for free in life....not even at WDW. For crying out loud....every single person that books a room at a WDW owned resort is paying for DME....not just those that are riding it!!! So, if 'perks' are put out there....we are all paying for it. In one way or another.
And closing parks to those not staying on-site? I have no words. Walt is indeed spinning.

 

[cakebaker]

WDW shouldn't ever offer front of the lines to resort guest (i say this being a resort guest) its not fair to those who can't afford the luxury

This is the argument that always amuses me...If everyone can't afford it, then it shouldn't be offered to anyone.

Using that theory, no one should go to WDW at all because not everyone can afford it. What you're really saying is Disney should only give perks up to the point that YOU can afford- then it becomes unfair.

 

[Sue M]

Absolutely agree! I've purchased FoTL as a day guest at US/IoA. But, you get just one attraction....with the resort FoTL, you get as many rides as you want. I think it would be terrific if those staying at the less expensive US/IoA resorts could buy the resort FoTL for a discount...maybe charge half of what non-resort guests pay yet give them the same perk as the other on-site guests get...as many rides on each attraction as you want. But, it will cost them.


I can get behind this....I own DVC, they are considered deluxe resorts, so I get two days in the parks.......


That will never change unless the roadways in that area are changed. There is a turn that the buses just can't make...so they have to pickup/dropoff at the GF last. Yes, it's a pain, but it is what it is.


These boards of full of comments such as 'OMG...what would Walt say about this'. Walt Disney had an entirely different view than what you are suggesting. He felt that once you left the resorts, and entered the parks, everyone should be treated the same...off-site, on-site, didn't matter. It's at the resort level that things could be different. Deluxe resorts have better theming, better pools, better park access to at least one park. The amenities are nicer..etc. At the moderates, you get nice theming, nice pools...but lesser than the deluxes. The values...pretty much okay but not nearly as nice as the others. But the are more than 'serviceable'! A deluxe resort, at WDW, is not meant to be the same as a 5 star deluxe resort elsewhere. This is Disney's way of catagorizing the resorts....it isn't comparable with other hotels around the world.



My objection (I have never stayed off-site for any of my more than 50 stays in Orlando for WDW) is that it is, in fact, elitist. And that isn't what Walt Disney wanted to have happen. There are plenty of policy changes happening that are probably very contrary to what he would have liked. Disney used to offer some really good discounts....not so much anymore. Why? They don't need to. They are filling enough rooms to make a huge profit. We see many, many people saying that if there is no free dining offered, they can't afford to go. Well.....if the rooms are filled, no need to offer it. Disney just doesn't feel the need to reward people. I own DVC..at two resorts! But I have to tell you...many of us that own DVC sometimes feel like the 'red-headed step-child' at Disney. We get little for our loyalty. But, we still go!
You know, going in, what you are going to get and how much it is going to cost you. There are times of the year that crowds are very manageable. If you go at Christmas, you have to know that you are going to have a ton of company. If you don't like it, don't go.

If Disney chose to let us buy FP+ pkgs, fine. I would probably buy one. But, I very much doubt that Disney is going to offer more FP+, across the board, to deluxe resort guests. Not without raising room rates. You get nothing for free in life....not even at WDW. For crying out loud....every single person that books a room at a WDW owned resort is paying for DME....not just those that are riding it!!! So, if 'perks' are put out there....we are all paying for it. In one way or another.
And closing parks to those not staying on-site? I have no words. Walt is indeed spinning.

Good info about the MK roadway. Didn't know busses couldn't make that turn. I always wondered why GF was consistently last pick up.

 

[disneydude365]

This is the argument that always amuses me...If everyone can't afford it, then it shouldn't be offered to anyone.

Using that theory, no one should go to WDW at all because not everyone can afford it. What you're really saying is Disney should only give perks up to the point that YOU can afford- then it becomes unfair.

Um no going to the parks and not getting to do anything due to people paying to pass lives and extra perks is bad
Seriously if people are this self entitled that they go with the whole whoever pays more deserves more is pathetic I've knoen more ppl staying in value resorts who won the Cinderella suite during year of a million dreams than delux.
Seriously people just go and have fun everything doesn't have to be your way (go to Burger King if it does) but luckily disneys already given out the perks so nothing will come from my or any other comments here