All FP machines to be removed from Animal Kingdom by next week and....

[Laketravis]

I agree it's not about perks, which is just a Disney marketing term. It's about the Disney hotels on the whole competing with the offsite hotels. Disney charges a huge premium to stay onsite, and many people, including myself, don't think it's worth it. If they can make it more worth it using FP, some people will choose to stay onsite versus offsite hence more $ for Disney. Maybe the +10 will be enough to do that, maybe not, then they have to balance alienating offsite customers too much. It will be interesting to see what they do to say the least. I thought there wasn't going to be a huge difference between offsite and onsite until the DAK test. Now I'm wondering otherwise.

(I don't want there to be any difference between onsite and offsite when it comes to FP, for my own reasons, mainly wanting to start staying offsite.)

Had an interesting conversation with Mr. Rosen a couple of months ago. He's the guy who has built a mini-empire of offsite resorts in Orlando. He's a down-to-earth, proud-to-talk-about-his-accomplishments kind of guy.

And many years ago, he used to work for Disney.

He shared some stats about his employee turnover (amazingly low for the hotel industry), carries no debt on several of his properties, started his own health care system for his employees which most recently covered all the bills for an employee with a preemie, etc...etc...etc....

He drew his comments to a close by saying that it all would not have been possible if Disney didn't make mistakes.

 

[ArwenMarie]

Had an interesting conversation with Mr. Rosen a couple of months ago. He's the guy who has built a mini-empire of offsite resorts in Orlando. He's a down-to-earth, proud-to-talk-about-his-accomplishments kind of guy.

And many years ago, he used to work for Disney.

He shared some stats about his employee turnover (amazingly low for the hotel industry), carries no debt on several of his properties, started his own health care system for his employees which most recently covered all the bills for an employee with a preemie, etc...etc...etc....

He drew his comments to a close by saying that it all would not have been possible if Disney didn't make mistakes.

I bet. I can think of a few mistakes

What does Mr. Rosen (and the rest of the Orlando non-Disney hotel industry) think about these FP+ developments I wonder?

 

[Vidia2]

I don't want there to be any difference between onsite and offsite when it comes to FP, for my own reasons, mainly wanting to start staying offsite.)

I think a lot of people are in the same mode of thinking - looking toward staying offsite in the future. Disney has other plans for us though. They want to not only boost resort stays to the point of having less vacancy but they want to build more resorts and fill them up.

Maybe building AoA was a test and they thought they had enough guests to fill that in addition to keeping other resorts at the 80% average. If there was a drop at all then they are going to be looking at incentives hard and ways to market them.

 

[wisblue]

I might agree with you if the limit wasn't three and there wasn't tiering. In that case, it's not an equal comparison since they're introducing new restrictions along with the reservations. The more I think about it, I'd probably be okay with the reservations if they didn't have the restrictions and tiering at that level.

To clarify, I don't think the two systems are EQUAL. I just think they are EQUALLY FAIR.

Just like no FP at all is also fair, though it has the ultimate in restrictions.

 

[Shaden]

I think if you tallied all of the posts, more of the opponents of FP+ are saying that FP- is more fair because it rewards people who plan and get to the park early.

Speaking for myself, I don't think FP+ is MORE fair, but I do think it is EQUALLY fair. It just rewards a different group, with the end result that more guests are likely to be able to ride a popular attraction once, at the expense of people who used FP- to ride them multiple times.

I have to say that I generally agree with this, the system is "equally fair" ... The biggest difference in its "fairness" is that you will have to be on 60 days ahead of time to book your FP+s instead of being at RD to start snagging FP-s.

One possible exception: If it really does turn out to be 60 Days + 10, then FP+ will be LESS fair. As it will be quite possible for you to snag the FPs another individual would like simply because your trip starts first. I know that this is true for all people, but a simple example would be People planning Christmas trips. Because I can get off work on Friday and start my Christmas week trip that day, should I get to book my FPs before someone else who, because of their job, can't just take Fridays off ?

To me, the issue isn't really fairness, its about the system. I don't want to lock into a park 60 days out, I don't want to have appointment times every day on my vacation, I don't want to be limited to 3 FPs per day, and I really don't want those FPs to be tiered so I am forced to stand in lines if I want to ride certain attractions. I don't want to stand in lines either. None of these are advantages over the previous system. And the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on this could very easily have been used to build more attractions instead of putting the squeeze on me. The previous system allowed me to navigate the parks, never waiting in lines more than 20 mins, riding all the rides I wanted to. And anyone in the park those days with could have done the exact same thing. The new system, isn't going to allow me to do that.

 

[lugnut33]

Sure - check out Disney's SEC Form 10K filing for FY2013. Page 33.

Looking back to confirm, occupancy rates for FY2012 were 81% and then dropped to 79% for FY2013. (They rounded up in the filing, but still a two point drop)

How do you know what Disney reported is true? Hmmmmmmm?

 

[Tozer]

Sure - check out Disney's SEC Form 10K filing for FY2013. Page 33.

Looking back to confirm, occupancy rates for FY2012 were 81% and then dropped to 79% for FY2013. (They rounded up in the filing, but still a two point drop)

Thanks for the link.

It is interesting to note that the total available room nights increased from the prior year. 10,558 vs 9,850. If we do the math on the 79% vs 81% occupancy from year to year we see it equates to 8,341(rounding up) in FY2013 vs 7979 from FY2012. While the occupancy rate has increased the actual room nights have increased. Keep in mind the opening of AoA in May 2012 plays a role in overall percentage of total occupancy rate.

A poster on another Disney board put it this way:

If they've built more capacity and the percentage usage is down, that doesn't mean there are less people coming. The ROI on the hotels across property is a more critical factor. If you have 10,000 rooms with a 90% occupancy rate and build an additional 10,000 rooms your occupancy rate dropping to 78% means you have 6,600 more people staying than you did before. 10,000 @ 90% = 9,000 rooms occupied, 20,000 @78% = 15,600 rooms occupied.

 

[doconeill]

Speaking of occupancy rates, is that vs. total possible rooms, or "active" rooms? For instance, you can't really book 100% of your total rooms, because then you have no standby inventory for dealing with problems with rooms, etc. without having to relocate guests elsewhere - and if its 100% across the board, where do you send them?

The point at which they declare themselves full MUST be less than the actual number of rooms. Not sure what it is.

Then, does the occupancy rate of 100% equal that amount, or is it the actual amount?

What about varying capacity? If it is known that occupancy will be low during a certain time of the year, they can "shut down" rooms or buildings (save power, cleaning, etc.) - do those still count?

If not, 80% for a year round average seems REALLY good to me.

 

[magicbob]

If there was a drop at all then they are going to be looking at incentives hard and ways to market them.

Here's a novel idea... maybe lower prices?

 

[Laketravis]

Thanks for the link.

It is interesting to note that the total available room nights increased from the prior year. 10,558 vs 9,850. If we do the math on the 79% vs 81% occupancy from year to year we see it equates to 8,341(rounding up) in FY2013 vs 7979 from FY2012. While the occupancy rate has increased the actual room nights have increased. Keep in mind the opening of AoA in May 2012 plays a role in overall percentage of total occupancy rate.

A poster on another Disney board put it this way:

You might interpret the numbers that way, but not bean counters nor investors.

Total available room nights increased because they built more rooms.

And their math indicates that as a percentage of available rooms, occupancy is down.

That is what the people who run the business pay attention to. They aren't going to get excited that 1,000 more people stayed onsite if they built 10,000 more rooms. They will get concerned.

 

[Brian Noble]

How do you know what Disney reported is true? Hmmmmmmm?

Well, you don't unless you work for the firm that does their audit (and possibly, not even then).

But lying on SEC filings is serious business indeed. It's probably safe to assume that TWDC does not do so.

 

[going/again]

If you mean that it takes a few seconds longer per person to get past the scanner, who cares if it doesn't affect how long it takes to get on the ride.

You do realise those few seconds spread out over the day means each person waits longer, the first person in line waits a few seconds yes that maybe true, but that's not the case for the last person in line is it. its a total of all the few seconds added together.

 

[pilferk]

Well, you don't unless you work for the firm that does their audit (and possibly, not even then).

But lying on SEC filings is serious business indeed. It's probably safe to assume that TWDC does not do so.

Beat me to it. The penalties for "lying" in their SEC filings would be a heck of a lot more than they would gain by doing it.

I'm thinking the OP was being a little sarcastic, though.

 

[Laketravis]

How do you know what Disney reported is true? Hmmmmmmm?

LOL! Right, I forgot - they hadn't yet been audited by the DIS Financial Committee.

 

[Eastern]

Here's a novel idea... maybe lower prices?

Just imagine if you were the new guy saying that at a big conference table during a Disney brainstorming session

 

[Tozer]

You might interpret the numbers that way, but not bean counters nor investors.

Total available room nights increased because they built more rooms.

And their math indicates that as a percentage of available rooms, occupancy is down.

That is what the people who run the business pay attention to. They aren't going to get excited that 1,000 more people stayed onsite if they built 10,000 more rooms.

The point is that the decrease in occupancy rate year over year did not occur with the same number of available hotel rooms. Of course the bean counters and people that run the business pay attention to the occupancy rates but they are also well aware of certain variables that come into play from year to year.

If you look at year to date occupancy rates in Orlando excluding Disney hotels you will find the following:

Lake Buena Vista Drive: 77.9%
International Drive 71.8%

Disney is right in line with their competitor's occupancy rates. It would be interesting to see the occupancy rates at the Universal hotels as well as the Rosen properties you mention. It would be interesting to see year over year comparisons for them as well.

You cannot extrapolate all of this out to fit your narrative at how much you believe that Disney is running its business into the ground mainly just because of your disdain for the whole FP+ program.

 

[KatieCharlotte]

I think a lot of people are in the same mode of thinking - looking toward staying offsite in the future. Disney has other plans for us though. They want to not only boost resort stays to the point of having less vacancy but they want to build more resorts and fill them up.

Maybe building AoA was a test and they thought they had enough guests to fill that in addition to keeping other resorts at the 80% average. If there was a drop at all then they are going to be looking at incentives hard and ways to market them.

I was excited about AoA suites. And then I saw the prices. There are too many offsite options that give you even more space at a third the cost. I would pay a premium to have that space in a nice onsite hotel, just not that high a premium.

I also know several larger families (and those who travel with grandparents) who would be happy to stay onsite if Disney had any semi-affordable options for families of six or an option much closer to $100 for a family of five.

 

[jade1]

Had an interesting conversation with Mr. Rosen a couple of months ago. He's the guy who has built a mini-empire of offsite resorts in Orlando. He's a down-to-earth, proud-to-talk-about-his-accomplishments kind of guy.

And many years ago, he used to work for Disney.

He shared some stats about his employee turnover (amazingly low for the hotel industry), carries no debt on several of his properties, started his own health care system for his employees which most recently covered all the bills for an employee with a preemie, etc...etc...etc....

He drew his comments to a close by saying that it all would not have been possible if Disney didn't make mistakes.

Hmm...I wonder if Disney did anything right-that led to his success?

 

[wisblue]

You do realise those few seconds spread out over the day means each person waits longer, the first person in line waits a few seconds yes that maybe true, but that's not the case for the last person in line is it. its a total of all the few seconds added together.

No, it doesn't mean that. Every FP line has two checkpoints. The outside lines that everyone sees and comments on are at the first of those two checkpoints. Even if you are held up for two minutes at the first checkpoint, all that probably means is that you will get to the second checkpoint two minutes later and will wait there for 2 minutes less before actually being waved into the boarding area. You will get on and off the ride at the exact same time.

 

[Laketravis]

Just imagine if you were the new guy saying that at a big conference table during a Disney brainstorming session

Who was then overruled by the other guy who proposed raising prices by 40% but then giving a 35% discount. Because everybody loves a bargain, right?