Are all Disney resort perks fair?

[Luckybee]

I'm definitely not arguing that staying at the resorts shouldn't earn you extra perks. Obviously if they're charging you that much for a room they should offer you something extra to entice you to stay. I guess the question is what perks the onsite people should get in the parks over the offsite. Disney says early FP and ADR's are fair so that is the definitive answer.

Honestly I think Disney should be offering more to onsite guests and imho even more to those who pay more and stay at their more expensive properties. They want to get offsiters to become onsiters or to keep onsiters they need to offer something.

I cant imagine what would entice us to stay onsite for more than a very brief stay other than perhaps if the 4 Seasons became a Disney property ( with 4 seasons still running the show) but if im going to have to give up offsite it would have to be really good and it would have to be something that a throwaway wont get me. For example if they offered extra fp's or something similar to Universals express but that one cant purchase for deluxe on a per day basis then I'd consider it. Otherwise I just cant justify getting less and paying more. The bubble doesn't work for me. I want peace and quiet and the opposite of Disney immersion when im not in the parks . Yep...the only thing I can think of would have to be related to fp's.

 

[atilley01]

Honestly I think Disney should be offering more to onsite guests and imho even more to those who pay more and stay at their more expensive properties. They want to get offsiters to become onsiters or to keep onsiters they need to offer something.

I cant imagine what would entice us to stay onsite for more than a very brief stay other than perhaps if the 4 Seasons became a Disney property ( with 4 seasons still running the show) but if im going to have to give up offsite it would have to be really good and it would have to be something that a throwaway wont get me. For example if they offered extra fp's or something similar to Universals express but that one cant purchase for deluxe on a per day basis then I'd consider it. Otherwise I just cant justify getting less and paying more. The bubble doesn't work for me. I want peace and quiet and the opposite of Disney immersion when im not in the parks . Yep...the only thing I can think of would have to be related to fp's.

This sums up my perspective pretty well. As much as I want to make the 60 day FP and the 10+ ADR's, it's not enough to entice me to stay on property. I'd rather get the larger room and pay less and just deal with the inconvenience of stalking the popular ADRs that I want.

I wish the system wasn't set up that way but I will still give Disney my money for the things I want to participate in.

 

[bookgirl]

I think it's fair to give onsite more perks.

I think it's fair to have different levels of resort stays with different levels of resort amenities (more park amenities maybe not so much, I'm on the fence with that).

It's not like they don't make it clear that those pre planning perks are better if you stay onsite, or that the more you pay for your room the better your location/dining options/transportation options/room size and amenities.

So you get what you pay for and that's fair.

 

[BrerRabbit1114]

I just can't fathom the fact that someone would choose to stay offsite as opposed to staying onsite. I stayed offsite once, and i'll never do it again. One of my favorite things about Disney is being able to take the provided transportation anywhere, any time I want. With that being said, I think it is fair that onsite guests get an advantage over offsite guests. You get what you pay for they always say, and in this case, staying onsite has its worthwhile perks.

 

[amandals2007]

can i predict this thread getting to over 50 pages???

 

[cakebaker]

can i predict this thread getting to over 50 pages???

I'll take that bet- it'll never make it. They never have before.

 

[msb578]

Honestly I think Disney should be offering more to onsite guests and imho even more to those who pay more and stay at their more expensive properties. They want to get offsiters to become onsiters or to keep onsiters they need to offer something.

I cant imagine what would entice us to stay onsite for more than a very brief stay other than perhaps if the 4 Seasons became a Disney property ( with 4 seasons still running the show) but if im going to have to give up offsite it would have to be really good and it would have to be something that a throwaway wont get me. For example if they offered extra fp's or something similar to Universals express but that one cant purchase for deluxe on a per day basis then I'd consider it. Otherwise I just cant justify getting less and paying more. The bubble doesn't work for me. I want peace and quiet and the opposite of Disney immersion when im not in the parks . Yep...the only thing I can think of would have to be related to fp's.

It's interesting that the Four Seasons didn't negotiate for any onsite perks (building the hotel required a joint venture). I guess they assume that people staying with them are there mainly to enjoy the resort, more so than all things Disney.

 

[momof2n2]

I just can't fathom the fact that someone would choose to stay offsite as opposed to staying onsite. I stayed offsite once, and i'll never do it again. One of my favorite things about Disney is being able to take the provided transportation anywhere, any time I want. With that being said, I think it is fair that onsite guests get an advantage over offsite guests. You get what you pay for they always say, and in this case, staying onsite has its worthwhile perks.

Honestly, I'm not being nasty. The idea of sitting on a bus with over-stimulated, sweaty, balloon-laden tourists gives me the shivers. Even if I were staying on property I'd have a car. That could NEVER be an incentive to me.

 

[DakotaRose]

Are perks for onsite guests fair? Sure. It's just one company's way of serving its customers. If you want more benefits, be more of a customer. I spent $250+ more per day with Disney staying onsite than we would have staying offsite.

 

[Luckybee]

I just can't fathom the fact that someone would choose to stay offsite as opposed to staying onsite. I stayed offsite once, and i'll never do it again. One of my favorite things about Disney is being able to take the provided transportation anywhere, any time I want. With that being said, I think it is fair that onsite guests get an advantage over offsite guests. You get what you pay for they always say, and in this case, staying onsite has its worthwhile perks.

And see for us it is just the opposite. For us staying onsite means giving up the things we like in a resort and most notably is the service. At Disney we felt like a number in the assembly line compared to other luxury properties in the area(or anywhere else for that matter). When we travel for pleasure I want to be pampered in a resort, and I don't want screaming kids by the pool (sorry to all those who have kids but all kids are not well behaved). I want 6 star dining on property (and by that I mean a restaurants that I would go to even if I wasn't at Disney), I want to return to my cocoon of calmness when I leave the parks
Most people who stay "deluxe" recognize that they will not get a luxury hotel experience at Disney and for them the trade-off is worth it. For us it isn't a trade-off because I'm not, as I said in my previous post looking to be immersed in the Disney bubble so I have a hard time "fathoming" why anyone would want to stay onsite.( I really don't but ...). I guess what I "just can't fathom" is how adults cant recognize that not everyone is the same as them. We all have choices to make, we all have separate likes and dislikes and fortunately there are a variety of properties out there. I "just cant fathom" how an adult couldn't understand that there are others who really do think differently from them.

 

[Luckybee]

Honestly, I'm not being nasty. The idea of sitting on a bus with over-stimulated, sweaty, balloon-laden tourists gives me the shivers. Even if I were staying on property I'd have a car. That could NEVER be an incentive to me.

I don't usually get into the "like" thingy since I hate the whole facebook thing, but if I were to do likes I would give this post a love x 10

 

[smiths02]

I just can't fathom the fact that someone would choose to stay offsite as opposed to staying onsite. I stayed offsite once, and i'll never do it again. One of my favorite things about Disney is being able to take the provided transportation anywhere, any time I want. With that being said, I think it is fair that onsite guests get an advantage over offsite guests. You get what you pay for they always say, and in this case, staying onsite has its worthwhile perks.

Try having a family of 5 and a budget (because maybe you'd like to send your 3 kids to college or retire one day). Your only option is two value rooms or cram into a mod room. With a discount, you might be able to stay in one of those options for $200/night. Now let's say for half that price, you can rent a condo or townhouse with lots of room, in a complex that has a pool, exercise room, game room, etc. Over a week, that saves you $700 in room costs alone...not to mention the food costs you could potentially save. For most families, $700+ savings makes things fathomable. Not to mention the space and privacy issues. The only caveat is that you have to get to your car and then drive 20 minutes instead of waiting 15 minutes for a 20 minutes bus ride. That's worth $700 to a lot of people.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

Perks are never "fair" if you don't want to do what must be done to get the perks. This is a normal way of doing business - offer the customers who pay more, something to help them justify paying you more.

How fair is it that most onsite guests at Universal get express access to almost everything?

I'd agree, if you want the perks of staying onsite, stay onsite.

 

[cakebaker]

. For us staying onsite means giving up the things we like in a resort and most notably is the service. At Disney we felt like a number in the assembly line compared to other luxury properties in the area

Wow- We've never felt like that when staying at a Deluxe. The service has always been exceptional.

When we travel for pleasure I want to be pampered in a resort, and I don't want screaming kids by the pool

I've never stayed at an all adult resort, but I've stayed at some really nice, posh hotels that had some of the worst behaved children I don't think the quality of the hotel affects the behavior of the children. We find the quiet pools at the deluxes to be relatively child free.

Most people who stay "deluxe" recognize that they will not get a luxury hotel experience at Disney and for them the trade-off is worth it.

No, I don't recognize that at all.

I could never stay off site, but I don't try and put little digs in about the quality of off site resorts either. Just because I choose on site doesn't mean off site is lesser quality- but that works both ways.

 

[smiths02]

Also, to the fairness, there is no specific park amenity that you are denied access to, so in that regard, I think the perks are fair. You can still potentially get FP+ for any ride and you can still wait in line for any ride. There is no "only people onsite can ride Space Mountain" perk.

Now, if they go to FP+ only for certain rides (like whatever they did with TSMM), then I think they are doing a disservice to offsite, annual passholders, or just people vacationing in Orlando coming by for the day. Eventually, these people will switch to onsite or just not go.

 

[cakebaker]

Honestly, I'm not being nasty. The idea of sitting on a bus with over-stimulated, sweaty, balloon-laden tourists gives me the shivers. Even if I were staying on property I'd have a car. That could NEVER be an incentive to me.

As does the idea of loading on to that barge with a bunch of hot, sweaty balloon laden tourists or having to ride in hot open air tram to my car- which is only 400 degrees inside.

Not sure why people have to slam other people's choices. We ride the busses quite a bit, and the description you gave is rarely the experience.

 

[RustManFan]

I am a shareholder..... have 1 share and I get about 36 cents (I think) in dividend each quarter!

 

[RustManFan]

In all my trips I don't think there was ever a balloon on any of the buses. Wet seats from people leaving the pool and taking the internal bus at FW but that was the parents' responsibility, not Disney's.

 

[anniemae]

Disney wants you to stay on site. On site guests will spend more money, they will buy meals at the hotel, get refillable mugs, buy things in the gift shop, buy drinks by the pool etc. Of course they want to entice you to stay on site.

 

[momof2n2]

As does the idea of loading on to that barge with a bunch of hot, sweaty balloon laden tourists or having to ride in hot open air tram to my car- which is only 400 degrees inside.

Not sure why people have to slam other people's choices. We ride the busses quite a bit, and the description you gave is rarely the experience.

Trams would annoy me, too. As RDers, we just walk to our vehicles.

My point is only that what WDW resorts offer as "incentives" have never been enough to encourage us. Until the 30 days more.