California Grill

[crusader]

Keep them all like that and we can certainly keep the page count down!!

Ah but then this site would be as boring as....................... well, nevermind!

Thanks for sharing! Have a magical day!

 

[Brian430]

Am I to understand that you think all resort guests should also be able to pool hop as well?

Are you suggesting that everyone staying at Pop Century should be able to take the monorail over from the Magic Kingdom and have a little dip in the Grand Floridian pool in the middle of the day? Or is that a convenience that people actualy staying at the hotel are paying $300 a night for?

Seems to me simply being on WDW property does not entitle you to every service that's available.

If you want to use a particular hotel's services you have the same right to pay for them like anyone else. But when you do pay those high prices I can guarantee you will not appreciate thousands of other people sneaking on property and ruining a service for which you paid. Whether it's crowding the pool, occupying a parking place or obstructing your view.

Whenever I walk by the Yachtman's Steakhouse I'm jealous that I have to eat McDonald's that night. But, I don't simply walk in the restaurant and start picking off people's plates, because "that's Walt would have wanted."

Walt was a capitalist. He wasn't running a comune.

 

[airlarry!]

Brian:

Cf:
Chandaliers and hamburger stands.
Gold Paint.
Club 33 admidst the regular joes.

May I respectfully suggst that Walt would have disagreed with you?

 

[DancingBear]

Larry, how exactly does Club33 support your point? Walt didn't exactly build the thing to invite in the hoi polloi.

 

[Brian430]

Am I being Punk'd?

You guys can't be serious.

You're pointing to theming inside a theme park attraction as justification that the deluxe resorts are now the communal property for anyone who happens to be in Orlando?

Knock yourselves out - sleep in the lobby of the Boardwalk for all I care.

This is just too weird to argue anymore.

 

[Lewisc]

Universal has 3 on-site hotels. They are all deluxe and have similar pricing. They charge for parking which probably helps discourage non-guest from "crashing". They allow pool hopping.

Disney has hotels in different price points to appeal to people that would otherwise stay offsite. Baron and others are missing the point. The value resorts were built (and priced) for the family that doesn't want to pay for resort amenities they don't plan on using. It's an alternative for staying offsite. Works out great for families that want to be in the parks from rope drop to park closing. GREAT for families that take one or two Disney trips in their lifetime. Disney allows for free parking and even provide monorail service to some of the hotels. It really makes NO SENSE to assume that Disney could allow pool hopping or otherwise allow non-guests to use all of the hotel facilities.

Disney used to have an inexpensive water park that MK guests could use if they wanted to take a break. Perhaps there are alternatives other than opening up resorts to non-guests. How about using a ferry boat for fireworks viewing? Pipe in the music. Sell some beverages and dessert. You could probably accommodate a lot more guests than the CG observation deck.

The observation deck can't handle the crowds. The elevators can't handle the crowds of people who leave the deck all at once after the fireworks end.

 

[YoHo]

Lewisc that's bull, the Values were built to take guests away from the offsite hotels plain and simple. It was all about more money.


Brian, All I can suggest is that you read up on the planing, design and construction of WDW a little. Pool hoping used to be 100% allowed. There was never any expectation of a "stay in your resort and only your resort"

And DB

I agree that when it was only the CR, Poly and FW that all resort guests may have had access to all of the resort pools, but, like the FOTL passes that Universal gives to its hotel guests, that is a privilege that was doomed when the expansion occurred.

How in God's name do you know unequivcably that it was DOOMED when expansion occured. All you can really say is that it was Doomed when Eisner's foolish stupid expansion occured, you cannot say that had the proceeded as intended that the same results would have happened.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by YoHo
Lewisc that's bull, the Values were built to take guests away from the offsite hotels plain and simple. It was all about more money.

That was my point, the values were built for guests who wanted a low price point with reduced amenities, the guests who would otherwise be looking at a Days Inn offsite. The amenities of the value resorts are much better than similar offsite properties. Excellent transportation, better pools and better food offerings than Days Inn and the like.

Yes it's about money, giving a Disney option to guests that want to spend less money. The boards are full of moderate income guests who save and/or go in debt to afford deluxe accomodations and more affluent people who chose moderate and deluxe resorts to stretch their vacation budget. I don't think calling it a "caste" system is fair.

Disney didn't build the value and moderate resorts, intending that the guests would be using the pools and parking lots at the deluxe hotels.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by thedscoop
Isn't that because they were much different in the earlier days, i.e. they were just your garden variety everyday pools--basically the same as to what today's "quiet pools" are.

Now, even non-deluxe resorts have "feature pools" that--in many instances--are essentially mini-waterparks.

............The reasonable solution seems to be that you can swim at the pool at the resort at which you stay...or at least make this rule for the most popular pools...

Just a thought. Scoop.

You also didn't have the internet, travel channel specials and guide books tipping people off about the "secrets." The MK resorts really don't have pool capacity,even at the quiet pools, for all the MK guests who want a pool break during the heat of the day. Originally the resort guests could go easilyt go back TO THEIR resort for a pool break. Even the FW guests could get back to their resort with a quick boat ride.

It's a shame that signage isn't enough and Disney had to put a fence around SAB and have CM's check resort id at other pools.

 

[DC7800]

That was my point, the values were built for guests who wanted a low price point with reduced amenities, the guests who would otherwise be looking at a Days Inn offsite.

Disney didn't build the value and moderate resorts, intending that the guests would be using the pools and parking lots at the deluxe hotels.

The guests do want the lower price point, but that doesn't mean they also desire the reduced amenities. Were that the case, value resort guests wouldn't be swarming to Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, and the various deluxe resorts, in search of activities not to be found at their home resort. If the intention was that these people had no interest in anything more than a room and shower, that's just one more failure of the value resort concept (other than architecture).

Many people want to use SAB or the Contemporary's deck; probably no one goes to Pop Century or the All-Stars to eat or shop (or swim) unless they are staying there. Demand for deluxe amenities is then overcrowded because while PC guests visit the Polynesian, Polyneisian guests do not visit PC. This wasn't the case years ago when there were only deluxe resorts and a campground.

 

[Lewisc]

The value resorts seem to have a pretty high occupancy rate. It gives Disney a way to book youth groups and families that are price conscious. Why are they're considered failures? Disney is pretty clear in the amenity difference between the resort classes.

Is it Disney's fault that some guests have chosen to pay for reduced amentities but then try to get the some of the amentities for free?

There is a PL resort option for guests looking for resort amenities on a budget. I recently stayed at the Gaylord Palms on a PL stay and their amenities (other than theme park transporation) exceed most of the Disney resorts.

The deluxe resorts weren't built to handle guests of other Disney resorts and off site guests looking for a place to take a quick pool break or a free place to watch the fireworks.

I'm not sure there's enough room on the observation deck to just handle Chief Mickey's guests who go up after dinner or before dinner let alone other guests. This is a treat that got too popular.

Originally posted by DC7800
The guests do want the lower price point, but that doesn't mean they also desire the reduced amenities. Were that the case, value resort guests wouldn't be swarming to Downtown Disney, Boardwalk, and the various deluxe resorts, in search of activities not to be found at their home resort. If the intention was that these people had no interest in anything more than a room and shower, that's just one more failure of the value resort concept (other than architecture).

Many people want to use SAB or the Contemporary's deck; probably no one goes to Pop Century or the All-Stars to eat or shop (or swim) unless they are staying there. Demand for deluxe amenities is then overcrowded because while PC guests visit the Polynesian, Polyneisian guests do not visit PC. This wasn't the case years ago when there were only deluxe resorts and a campground.

 

[YoHo]

I don't know, I've never considered the Poly pool to be a typical "quiet" pool.

But all that ignores the very obvious.

Clearly SAB is popular, clearly people, yes even those poor and penny wise people at the Values Want that pool experience.

But wait, I keep getting told that Value guests only want a bed to sleep in. HYow is it possible that they really want a bed to sleep in and a themed pool to swim in? those uppity bums.

Essentially Disney went from a 1 price fits all scheme where everybody could share amenities to a 3 tiered pricing structure where everyone could share amenities. The language filter won't allow me to properly experss how obvious the trip to failure is.

The core issue is the assumption that Value guests want nothing more then a bed to sleep on. Bull, I think it's clear that isn't what they want. They want waterslides and Fireworks and monorails and everything else too.

The apologists, the snowglobers, the what have you are quick to conclude that it was all inevitable. It's like a choose your own adventure book where both choices at the bottom of the page lead to the exact same conclusion.

It's like this "Disney built these resorts and that was the only way it could have been done, so therefore the results are inevitable."
But it isn't the only way it could have been done. There were very different plans from what was implemented. Plans that were dropped.

 

[YoHo]

Originally posted by Lewisc

Is it Disney's fault that some guests have chosen to pay for reduced amentities but then try to get the some of the amentities for free?

Try to get them for free? are you insane? they were free. It's historical fact.

The deluxe resorts weren't built to handle guests of other Disney resorts and off site guests looking for a place to take a quick pool break or a free place to watch the fireworks.

Yes, actually they were. It's the new resorts built by Eisner that weren't designed to handle it.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by YoHo
Try to get them for free? are you insane? they were free. It's historical fact.



Yes, actually they were. It's the new resorts built by Eisner that weren't designed to handle it.

Insane, NO Disney is pretty specific as to the difference between the resorts. Didn't legal pool hopping end before the All-Stars were built? Did Disney ever say that guests of the All-stars were allowed to use other resorts pools? When was the last time you saw anything in writing that permitted pool hopping? Disney owned a lot of land and wanted to offer resorts with different amenities to different price points. Makes sense to me. WAS IT EVER FREE TO THE GUESTS OF THE VALUE RESORTS?


Sorry I don't buy it. The overcrowding isn't just Disney guests staying at value resorts, it's also offsite guests. The POLY pool isn't big enough for all. If Disney never built value resorts the value oriented guests would be staying offsite at places like the Days Inn and would still be crowding the observation deck at the Contemporary.

I guess there are some different philosophies:

1) Amenities are for guests of that resort.
2) Amenities are for guests of any WDW resort
3) Amenities should also be available to customers of a resort's spa or restaurant
4) Amenities should be available to anyone who is a customer of WDW world even if they are staying offsite.

I don't really see any distinction between 2,3 and 4. You either open it up to everyone or limit to guests of that resort. The problem is the number of people in those 3 categories is starting to strain the resources. Vegas hotels scan your room key to make sure you're a current guest of that hotel before you're allowed to even enter the pool area.

Disney is actually pretty lenient with the rules. Other than July 4 are people who aren't guests of the POLY told to leave the beach? Other than SAB don't CM's generally look the other way when guests pool crash? People who aren't guests at AKL are still allowed to walk around and look at the animals. Aren't guests not staying in the Contemporary allowed to watch fireworks from a lower floor?

 

[YoHo]

GAH!

Just,.....GAH!

verbalized language can't express the utter disbelief I feel right now. It's like people think Disney History started the Day Micheal Eisner Walked in and on top of it, there's some sort of stupid assumption that if Disney (even under Eisner) built it, then it must be the right thing to build.

Utterly incomprehensible.


And for the record, pool hoping was only shut down a few short years ago.

 

[DC7800]

Why are they're considered failures? Disney is pretty clear in the amenity difference between the resort classes.

Financially speaking, the value resorts are successful. They fail in being Disney resorts. You know how they've been tagged - as decorated Motel 6's. The architecture (decorations) are hideously ugly and they lack the features, amenities, and theming Disney traditionally put into its hotels.

Some amenities absent in the values are what helps distinguish them from the moderate resorts, but that doesn't mean value resort guests don't want full-service restaurants, room service, monorail service, or elaborately themed pool complexes. Really, what people want is a full-featured Disney hotel for the value price, but that takes us back to the problem of how to charge $300 for the GF when you can get a comparable PC room for $99. The selling point has always been price, not "theming" or level of amenities.

Priceline (and Hotwire) isn't applicable for WDW resort guests, since no Disney resorts are available (Swan & Dolphin are rare). For whatever reason (can't afford more, saving money for next year's trip, etc.) you want an inexpensive room inside WDW, the value resorts (discount codes notwithstanding) are about your only option. Again. just because your resort is PC doesn't mean all you want (or deserve) is a bed and shower.

Is it Disney's fault that some guests have chosen to pay for reduced amentities but then try to get the some of the amentities for free?

To the extent that it was poor planning, if no one anticipated that many value guests would want some of the same amenities as the deluxe resorts' own guests, yes. Besides, they aren't really getting many of these services for free. If I dine, shop, visit the spa, or rent a boat at the Grand Floridian it costs the same no matter where I'm staying. I'm paying for it, it's profit for Disney - who could possibly object? If there is insufficient capacity, it obviously must be dealt with (expansion, reservations, or whatever), but where those customers spend the night isn't the real problem. If everyone staying at the Polynesian decided to watch the fireworks from the beach the same night, it would resemble Main Street after Spectromagic. Neither could all the Contemporary's guests get on that deck at once. However, if more resorts had more "magical" places to go, spreading out the crowds, it won't matter so much if a particular guest wants to use another hotel's balcony or beach.

 

[Lewisc]

Originally posted by YoHo
GAH!

Just,.....GAH!

verbalized language can't express the utter disbelief I feel right now. It's like people think Disney History started the Day Micheal Eisner Walked in and on top of it, there's some sort of stupid assumption that if Disney (even under Eisner) built it, then it must be the right thing to build.

Utterly incomprehensible.


And for the record, pool hoping was only shut down a few short years ago.

Disney history didn't start with ME; BUT the philosophy of offering different on-site hotel experiences at different price points did start with him. Originally you had Disney Deluxe hotels, DTD hotels and offsite. FW was an exception. ME decided to use the inventory of land to build hotels and sell off some land for non-Disney hotels.

Sorry but my memory is different than yours. I remember staying in Dixie Landings in 1996 and being told you could only use the pool in that resort and at PO. My brother stayed in the All-Stars in 1995 and you were told you could only use the pool in the All-Stars. Signs by the pool indicated that the were for guests of that resort. I'm sure pool hopping was ended before the value resorts opened and I'm almost 100% sure it ended before Disney opened the moderates.

What I find incomprehensible is the problem some people have with a hotel limiting some of their facilities to people who are actually paying to stay in that hotel. Guests in Vegas hotels are generally not allowed to use the pools in sister properties.

I do agree with the poster who said Disney could do a better job by adding some amenities to the value resorts. They certainly could have movies, face painting and other free items. Disney seems to think a good arcade is all the activities that is needed.

BTW Universal has a limited amount of land. They have 3 deluxe hotels with similar pricing. They charge for parking which tends to dissuade non-guests from crashing. Pool hopping is permitted and the pools seem a lot less crowded (even when they are sold out) than the Disney deluxe hotels. Prehaps they have more pool area for the number of rooms but I get the impression that you have a lot less pool crashers.

edited--I did a google group search. As far back as 1995 people were posted that resort brochures told you what pools you were allowed to use (your hotel and sister hotels). Google doesn't have disney group posts prior to 1995.

 

[Bstanley]

Yoho,

And for the record, pool hoping was only shut down a few short years ago.

Do you have some documentation on this or is it anecdotal?

I don't doubt that when WDW opened that this was the policy, but I am surprised that it survived very many years.

 

[DancingBear]

Originally posted by YoHo
How in God's name do you know unequivcably that it was DOOMED when expansion occured. All you can really say is that it was Doomed when Eisner's foolish stupid expansion occured, you cannot say that had the proceeded as intended that the same results would have happened.

I'm sure you would agree that, if all of the folks at the Venetian and the Asian resorts came over to swim at the Contemporary, the Contemporary pool would become too crowded. So, as I understand your argument, the solution would be that the pools at each of the resorts would be designed such that they would be equally attractive and thus everyone would stay at their "home" pools (or at least would remain equally distributed).

But is this really feasible, or even desirable? Unless you upgraded all of the pools at the same time, wouldn't one always be the newest and "best"?

And, isn't it desirable to have some variations in design and amenities among the resorts? Do you really need a Stormalong Bay in every resort? Do you also then need a Victoria and Albert's? Or a geyser?

 

[Lewisc]

ITA--Some people remember the old days in which people were promised free soda for life and you could use any pool on property.

Do you have any definitive information as to when Disney stopped offically listing pool hopping as a resort benefit and when Disney stopped officially telling people the mugs were good for life. People seem to think it was only a few years ago and I think it goes back to at least the mid 90's.

Originally posted by thedscoop
Now, some are drawing the line at when Disney expanded its on property resort offerings in the 1990s as when a problem developed.

I think that points to the wrong problem.

The reason that WDW might have been able to allow all WDW guests to swim at any WDW (regardless of whether they were staying on property?) is because WDW was not nearly as popular then as it is today.

Literally millions and millions of more guests visit WDW today than in the 1970s. That means much more capacity issues.

In fact, I believe that it can be reasonably argued that--had WDW not built additional on property resorts with additional pools--then this problem would have reached a tipping point years ago because the yearly number of WDW guests (and thus potential WDW pool user under this scenario) simply could not continue to grow while keeping pool capacity essentially the same.