Disney Reports 3rd Quarter Earnings Ahead of Expectations.

The beach is public land because hotels cannot own sections of the beach in Hawaii.

Look at the satellite photos, you can see that this isn't a natural beach. It's on a rocky, exposed shoreline with no natural reef. They bulldozed an artificial lagoon out of the land and blasted an artificial inlet from the ocean, with an artificial reef or breakwater to protect the trucked-in sand.

I was going to say, I would be very surprised if the public right-of-way laws of Hawaii extend to the Aulani beach, any more than Florida's public access to beaches extends to the ones at Polynesian Resort or Typhoon Lagoon.

And then ... I checked and sure enough, you're right! From the Disney site:

Q:Is the beach exclusive to Resort Guests?
A: No. There are no private beaches in Hawai‘i. All beach areas have public access. Fortunately, O‘ahu has beautiful sandy beaches at every turn.

The last sentence is kind of humorous ... "don't worry probably nobody will bother you on the beach 'cause there's so many other places they can bother people."

And I imagine they have ways of making interlopers feel ... uncomfortable. I have an old guidebook to Hawaii, and a good portion of the book is about how to deal with landowners who try to prevent you from accessing public beaches that adjoin their land.

EDIT ... and there's more about this on the Disboards. I urge you to read the entire thread, but here is (I think) the money quote:

We own a condo in Ko Olina (not a TS) and Ko Olina is an 'odd duck'. Yes, all 'regular' beaches in Hawaii are public, but the Ko Olina lagoons weren't originally 'beaches' and so don't fall under those guidelines. The 'public' area is just the area up to the 'historical high water mark' which in this case is way way out on the rocky coastline. All of the sand, the lagoons themselves and the walkways/areas around them are private and owned by the Ko Olina Resort. The public has a 'right of way' to get to the 'public' shoreline (again, way out on the rocky coast, NOT the sandy beach). Because of that the lagoons have all sorts of restrictions that regular public beaches don't. You can't use an umbrella or shade structure (unless you rent one from an authorized vendor on the Dis beach). You can't setup a tent or tables or have amplified music, etc etc.

http://www.disboards.com/threads/the-future-of-beach-crowds-at-aulani.2727470/
 
Last edited:
DVC is not counted in that occupancy rate it is separate.

Hmmmm...I'm
Having a hard time accepting this one...

What's stopping them from using occupancy numbers as they see fit?

Unless Florida law dictates that because of the DVC charter...but Florida laws are not know to written to give Disney "limited options"...historically speaking.
 
So what does that tell you?

The law of -1 is in effect

The 10% drop in share price was a pretty severe spanking administered by very hard-headed fund managers. It's hard to see it any other way. I doubt if the fund managers and analysts listened to the conference call with more than one ear for more than half the time. "Bzzzz bzzz blah blah blah ... hotel occupancy ... Aulani ... wah wah wah ... faith in ESPN ... blah blah blah ... " Meanwhile they ran the numbers, adjusted for the earnings change and issued the sell orders. Or buy orders at the new, low price.

From the theme park consumer point of view this is a good thing "... ESPN is tanking, we've been spanked pretty hard, now what parts of the business could we focus on ... especially the parts of the business that we know really well from long experience and which aren't subject to severe disruptive technology changes ... hmmm ... help me out here guys ..."
 

And yet they say this:



I thought Aulani was a DVC? But I also heard that sales are not that great. Is Disney's new resort hotel of today just the failed DVC project of yesterday? Sounds like they're trying to put a bit of lipstick on a pig.

I haven't seen the resort in person but I must say, I agree with the comment made here in the past that it's on the wrong side of the wrong island. It doesn't look like it's in a very impressive setting. Basically just a condo-type resort dropped into a narrow footprint on an artificial beach blasted out the rocks next to what looks like a suburb of Honolulu. I could get excited about bringing my family to visit the Big Island, which I've visited before, or to visit Maui which is super nice and super interesting according to all reports. But Aulani doesn't resemble anything like what I consider to be the glamour and fascination of Hawaii.

If they say that Aulani has higher occupied room nights, I suppose that could mean, it was close to zero before, now they're less close to zero ...

Aulani is a hotel and a DVC not just a DVC. It is far from being a condo resort
 
Hmmmm...I'm
Having a hard time accepting this one...

What's stopping them from using occupancy numbers as they see fit?

Unless Florida law dictates that because of the DVC charter...but Florida laws are not know to written to give Disney "limited options"...historically speaking.
As far as I understand that's how it works. That is why you see conversion at some hotels because those hotels have lower occupancy rates.
 
As far as I understand that's how it works. That is why you see conversion at some hotels because those hotels have lower occupancy rates.

Possibly...but that doesn't preclude that they don't put the DVC "occupancy"...basically 100%... in the overall property figures...

Even though DVC is "Seperate"...it's all under tbr same umbrella.

A similar example in olden times was that Florida law - unlike other states - had fairly strict rules on "overbooking" hotels...
You really couldn't do it.

But about...ohh...15 years ago...all wdw properties (small percentage DVC then) were "grouped" as one Hotel with about 20,000 rooms...

Meaning individual hotels were often "down rooms"...even if there was never any intention of moving 5 rooms from all stars to 5 empty rooms at the grand and the poly...

But such is life when youre the king
 
Per my Hawaiian wife no one (person, corp or hotel) is allowed to own beach property in Hawaii.
 
Look at the satellite photos, you can see that this isn't a natural beach. It's on a rocky, exposed shoreline with no natural reef. They bulldozed an artificial lagoon out of the land and blasted an artificial inlet from the ocean, with an artificial reef or breakwater to protect the trucked-in sand.

The history of that area is that Ko Olina was created by a developer long before Disney decided to build there. That developer created a series of artificial lagoons along at section of the coast. You can see these on a Google map of the area if you search. Having been to Aulani twice now I can tell you that the actual beach there is very nice. You don't go to the rocky shore part unless you wan to.

The last sentence is kind of humorous ... "don't worry probably nobody will bother you on the beach 'cause there's so many other places they can bother people."

As reported, the beaches in all of Hawaii are public.

And I imagine they have ways of making interlopers feel ... uncomfortable. I have an old guidebook to Hawaii, and a good portion of the book is about how to deal with landowners who try to prevent you from accessing public beaches that adjoin their land.

In our visits to Aulani we've seen no attempts at all to make interlopers feel uncomfortable. There is a public pathway that runs down to the beach right alongside the Aulani buildings. Nobody on the beach is stopped from walking along it or going into the water.

EDIT ... and there's more about this on the Disboards. I urge you to read the entire thread, but here is (I think) the money quote
Sorry, but that money quote is just wrong. Again, the beaches are free to anybody.
 
I haven't seen the resort in person but I must say, I agree with the comment made here in the past that it's on the wrong side of the wrong island. It doesn't look like it's in a very impressive setting. Basically just a condo-type resort dropped into a narrow footprint on an artificial beach blasted out the rocks next to what looks like a suburb of Honolulu. I could get excited about bringing my family to visit the Big Island, which I've visited before, or to visit Maui which is super nice and super interesting according to all reports. But Aulani doesn't resemble anything like what I consider to be the glamour and fascination of Hawaii.

Agreed 100%. My wife and I have considered an Aulani trip, but unfortunately, the resort's location is a prohibiting factor for us. It's in a terrible location and situated on the worst island (IMHO). It looks like a beautiful resort, but because of the location, we will most likely skip it and pay OOP for a different resort located on Maui.
 
I haven't seen the resort in person but I must say, I agree with the comment made here in the past that it's on the wrong side of the wrong island. It doesn't look like it's in a very impressive setting. Basically just a condo-type resort dropped into a narrow footprint on an artificial beach blasted out the rocks next to what looks like a suburb of Honolulu. I could get excited about bringing my family to visit the Big Island, which I've visited before, or to visit Maui which is super nice and super interesting according to all reports. But Aulani doesn't resemble anything like what I consider to be the glamour and fascination of Hawaii.
You really need to see this resort. The place is not at all like you think it is. I don't know what a "condo-type resort" is, but Aulani is gorgeous, with lush surroundings. There is no "suburb of Honolulu" atmosphere here at all. In fact Honolulu is probably 30-45 minutes away, with Waikiki a bit further. The beach (artificial as it is) is just beautiful.
 
You really need to see this resort. The place is not at all like you think it is. I don't know what a "condo-type resort" is, but Aulani is gorgeous, with lush surroundings. There is no "suburb of Honolulu" atmosphere here at all. In fact Honolulu is probably 30-45 minutes away, with Waikiki a bit further. The beach (artificial as it is) is just beautiful.

I'm sure from what you and others have said I would really enjoy staying there. It's a matter of taste and personal interest whether someone gets excited about visiting a place like Big Island or Maui and exploring the back roads, visiting tiny, isolated beaches and checking out the volcanoes, watching the dolphins or swimming with sea turtles. I'm not listing those things to make Aulani look bad, either. I can understand why many people aren't interested in committing acts of rugged eco-tourism when they're on vacation.

If Aulani is financially successful for Disney I suppose it's because they looked at the resort areas such as Kona, and the type of people who enjoy those resorts, and realized that they can get some of that spending by building a new chunk of Kona, only nicer because they made a fresh start ... and putting it on the island that has the best air connections and getting a lot of services such as water and electricity relatively cheaply because it's practically in the Honolulu urban area ... not that it feels like it if you stay there :cool2:
 
I'm sure from what you and others have said I would really enjoy staying there. It's a matter of taste and personal interest whether someone gets excited about visiting a place like Big Island or Maui and exploring the back roads, visiting tiny, isolated beaches and checking out the volcanoes, watching the dolphins or swimming with sea turtles. I'm not listing those things to make Aulani look bad, either. I can understand why many people aren't interested in committing acts of rugged eco-tourism when they're on vacation.

If Aulani is financially successful for Disney I suppose it's because they looked at the resort areas such as Kona, and the type of people who enjoy those resorts, and realized that they can get some of that spending by building a new chunk of Kona, only nicer because they made a fresh start ... and putting it on the island that has the best air connections and getting a lot of services such as water and electricity relatively cheaply because it's practically in the Honolulu urban area ... not that it feels like it if you stay there :cool2:
I agree that it depends on your tastes. If I stay on Oahu I want it be in one of the older, traditional resorts and then only for a few days. The other islands are far more interesting to me.

Maybe Disney will build more resorts on the other islands.
 
Ahhhh...at least somebody noticed the real reason behind the events here...they tried to rush it by everyone. Only the first posters here seem to have a hook stuck in their jaws ;)

...Instead of this fool Pom poming - that predictably and immediately went up.

The espn subscription fees are the "pure profit" portion of why espn is the most successful cable TV endeavor ever by a mile. Similar to the giftshops at the parks.

The "costs" are covered by the sponsors... So the fees are what the market and CMB and his posse care about...to be honest.

Now...the difference here is that a 3 million/4% drop in subscribers would typically not be a huge deal. But if you listened to Iger - he's nervous and should be.

This is only the beginning for "cord cutting"...and he damn well knows it.

Espn...hitching its wagon to the NBA and NFL almost exclusively - looks great now...but if they have to go into the unbundled world and try to charge what they want...might just show the warts.

Every cable subscriber in the country pays a
Staggering $6 a month for the espn block...and there's currently 90 million of them...

But that number is falling and will not rebound...technology changes everything...that is a big uncertainty.

I'm sick of paying Comcast some ridiculous monthly fee (I don't even look - to be honest) and the end is near. When I go rogue...will I then pay Disney $25 a month for espn?

Not a chance...the programming has sucked for years. I would venture I'm In the "developing majority" here.

This is a blow Disney hasn't seen for a few years now...and not going away. Stay tuned.

A 9% drop in stock price on one figure is pretty big "news" here.
Agreed, the ESPN situation is pretty awful right now. They're being attacked from both the distributor and content source sides. Star Wars can make 3 Billion $, but ultimately that's not going to make a difference in the longterm. None of Bob Iger's big acquisitions will stop the slide. ESPN dwarfs them all.

Though frankly, I think just talking about ESPN is too simple. ESPN is the support structure of the entire Media Networks Division. It's a well known industry fact that Disney demands more money for Disney Channel, ABC, ABC News, ETC. by leveraging ESPN. Essentially if a cable company finds paying for Disney Channel is too expensive, stinks for them because they'll lose ESPN if they don't pay. Loosing that leverage could not only mean ESPN's in trouble, but the entire company. The thought of something as stable as the Media Networks falling in flames seemed unthinkable a few years ago. A company could count on Sports, news, and good television content to provide a strong source of revenue forever.

That stability is beginning to be called into question.

I'm honestly wondering if the WDC we've known for the last decade, a company that always put their media division before all else, is going to undergo a fairly seismic shift. For the most part I'd say ESPN's problems had been mounting more and more in recent years, but Iger had been able to distract investors with flashy acquisitions and strong results from the rest of the company. Now the curtain has been pulled away for the first time, and the Emperor has no clothes.

I'm excited about the potential for industry innovators like Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and of course Netflix, to tear the cable company stranglehold apart. Isn't amazing that each month, tens of millions of Americans pay for content they don't want, don't need, and some that may even be incredibly offensive. That millions of Americans that find Fox news repugnant, and millions more on the other side that loath MSNBC, are paying for each those channels existence?

That's about to change, that's awesome.

I also have a feeling Disney is going to be railroaded by this phenomenon. There's no going back now.

As I wrote back in May on how I would handle ESPN, and Media Networks:
I expect ESPN to be squeezed by higher costs, and Disney's portfolio of channels to sell to cable companies for lower subscription costs as that industry is disrupted. I believe Media Networks is the most vulnerable division in the company, and the most likely to lead to billions in lost value. I'd argue spinning it off due to these risks and lack of synergies. An IPO for ESPN, and a rebranded ABC News would do the trick. Either offer shares in the new company or straight up return cash to the shareholders.

I think ABC and Disney Channel should survive. They represent the most synergy with their other brands. The new Walt Disney Company would consist of their core strength in IP Managment and unique experiences. Also of note, because Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is a highly stable business it would offer security when making investments in movies. De Capital Cities themselves.

Isn't it funny that a CEO that's obsessed with "synergy," has been so dependent on a company that has no synergy with Disney, Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, etc. ESPN and most Media Networks doesn't make sense with the rest of Disney, I say spin that sucker off.
 











Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE











DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top