DVC answers re: transportation/dues--still singing the same off key tune...

[bicker]

There are other business entities within Disney that would benefit from shifting their transportation burden away from their business unit and onto others (DVC for example).

True, but the assertion here, unless I missed something, was that the disparity was between two different DVC resorts. If that explanation applied, what would account for the disparity?

 

[ATCMickey]

True, but the assertion here, unless I missed something, was that the disparity was between two different DVC resorts. If that explanation applied, what would account for the disparity?

I believe the assertion also compared the formulas used to distribute costs amongst the Disney Resort/DVC Resort business units at a given location. Disney Resorts will negotiate the best contract for transportation it can get for each locale (e.g. Boardwalk, the Yacht/Beach Club complex, etc.). Hence the key problem, this situation is not resolved against a backdrop of equitable principals applied across all resorts, it is the result of serious competitive bidding at each resort complex. That could seriously result in an inequitable assessment and one that cost shifts to DVC owners.

ATCMickey

 

[bicker]

That's true, and also not only explains why such disparities exist, but why they should be expected. While DVC can be expected to negotiate on our behalf as best as they can, it is not reasonable to expect that they will be consistently successful, in the same measure, in every single case, since there are many human variables involved, many of which are outside DVC's control (i.e., those that are within Disney's control).

 

[jarestel]

Whether one is of the opinion that Disney is infallible and never makes mistakes or, at the other extreme, one feels that Disney has fallen so far from their original principles of quality that they are now simply another money grubbing corporation only looking out for Number One, it's still difficult to see why simply questioning one of their procedures stirs up so much desire to defend the corporation in some of us. I'm not a BWV owner, but if PKS44 has concerns about how his dues are being apportioned, then he would be foolish to simply "let it go" just because he likes vacationing at WDW. The 2 things are totally unrelated. It IS possible to love Disney and still question how they do things.

 

[PKS44]

E Healy is the person at DVC whom I was told to deal with. She is "Finance Manager - DVC Condominium & Resorts, Disney Vacation Club"

and I think I may have goofed on an earlier post and overstated the difference as tjkraz says--I have to double check that.

I can see Brian's point and tjkraz's as well--about cycle times, etc...but then the policy still needs to be consistent---and it is not. That is not opinion...it is not consistent. Either the size of resort has an influence on the transport needs or it does not..the current policy says that the size of the resort has no bearing on it's transport needs and therefore the costs are the same whether a resort has 4000 guests or 2500 guests...is this true throughout Disney--does transport charge the POFQ the same amount as it charges the CBR or the CSR for buses? If they charged for transport for each trip, like buying a bus ticket, the bigger resorts would have a bigger cost: more guests buying more tickets.

If the buses are soooo big that one bus every twenty minutes is enough to handle the 64% larger YC/BC/BCV load and the smaller load from the BWI/BWV then brian and tjkraz and Disney are right to make the costs split roughly evenly between the two resorts... then that means that the added number of guests at the bigger resort never results in needing more than one bus....or boat or more frequent service. (this is very hard to believe. I have been there when the BW was the last stop and the bus was completely full by the time it reached the BW and they had to get an extra bus ordered because the S/D, YC/BC/BCV guests filled the bus to capacity before the BW guests ever had a chance) The equal cost split suggests that a bus and a boat never fill to capacity...that is laughable to anyone who has ever waited for transport at the end or start of a day. If a second bus ever has to be ordered it has to be because the larger resort NEEDS it...if they NEED it--they should be bearing the COST of it.

But if true, if size has no bearing --the number of buses is never altered by having more guests---than there is no reason the costs should be divided as they are within the resort...the boardwalk transport needs are one bus or boat every 20 minutes..so the fact that 58% of the passengers happen to be DVC has NO IMPACT on the needs and therefore no impact on the costs and therefore should be shared equally....in fact--the BCV guests should not hve to pay a penny..the YC BC had buses and transport needs before the BCV ever was built...apparently those needs are not affected by increasing the size of the resort--so why stick them with any of the costs? they are not responsible for any extra costs by Disney's and brian's and tjkraz's logic....They charge the larger parts of a resort more money, smaller parts less money --implying a larger responsibility is to be borne by the larger number of guests...Which is it? they contend that 58% of the cost is the BWV owners responsibility. Why, if bigger makes no difference?

So apparently size matters. If it matters, than the shared costs for the boats and buses shared between the north and south side of crescent lake should be similarly apportioned. (and we keep leaving out Swan and Dolphin which are even larger than the YC/BC/BCV complex--as I recall the YC complex is 1.6 x larger than the BW and the S/D is 2 times larger than the YC --something like that...those posts from past years seem to be gone.)

 

[DisFlan]

That would only be relevant if the number of non-resort guests prompts a need for additional transportation.

If Disney's standard is to run a bus every 15 minutes to all destinations with no abnormally long waits due to insufficient bus capacity, then it doesn't matter whether there are 10 people on the bus or 20 people.

I don't know about the "norm" at BW, but we waited 30 to 40 minutes last month for buses and they were full. If this is common, I'd say it might require some sort of re-thinking on Disney's part.

DisFlan

 

[tjkraz]

I don't know about the "norm" at BW, but we waited 30 to 40 minutes last month for buses and they were full. If this is common, I'd say it might require some sort of re-thinking on Disney's part.

DisFlan

Oh, I agree. The bus service there tends to stink...even during slower periods. I'm sure that plays into PKS44's motivation here as well.

And, I should probably amend my previous statement to read like this:

"If the budgets are based upon running a bus every 15 minutes to all destinations, then it doesn't matter whether there are 10 people on the bus or 50 people."

The point being, if Disney claims they are providing the same service to both resorts, regardless of rider level or guest wait times, then one would expect the costs to be comparable. I still think that leaves a few unexplained questions such as how the D&S factor in since they appear to be sharing with the BW guests most (if not all) of the time.

I doubt I'd be sufficiently motivated to follow this through (particularly since I'm not an owner there), but I'll certainly be watching the situation with a degree of curiosity. After all, my resort's transportation budget is almost 3x that of the Boardwalk.

 

[waltfan1957]

That would only be relevant if the number of non-resort guests prompts a need for additional transportation.

If Disney's standard is to run a bus every 15 minutes to all destinations with no abnormally long waits due to insufficient bus capacity, then it doesn't matter whether there are 10 people on the bus or 20 people.

I think you are missing the point it does matter if dvc owners are paying for transportation and others are using it for free if it does'nt matter how would you feel if they gave our ssr rooms away free as well

 

[bicker]

Hmmmm... I'm not sure I agree in the parallel you're trying to draw. You need to keep in mind that the timeshare is part of a public accommodation. We weren't guaranteed that Disney would take all the burden of the resort being a public accommodation onto itself, but rather we were promised that those costs, just like all the other costs, would be divided between Disney and us (DVC). By contrast, applicable non-DVC use of rooms was explicitly covered in the specs, and it made it clear that we wouldn't incur the cost associated with such use nor benefit from the revenues generated by such use.

 

[tjkraz]

I think you are missing the point it does matter if dvc owners are paying for transportation and others are using it for free if it does'nt matter how would you feel if they gave our ssr rooms away free as well

Then what's your solution?

Should DVC owners be prohibited from using the monorail? Out budgets don't pay for that.

What if I want to take a bus from DTD to AKL for dinner? Our budgets don't pay for that.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If DVC members have the right to use the Monorail to get from Epcot to the Contemporary, then cash guests have the right to use a bus to get from the Magic Kingdom to SSR if they choose to do so.

I agree completely with PKS44 that something is amiss--but the error is in the calculation, not the reality that DVC owners must fund transportation to their own resorts regardless of who is using that transportation.

 

[DisFlan]

The point being, if Disney claims they are providing the same service to both resorts, regardless of rider level or guest wait times, then one would expect the costs to be comparable. I still think that leaves a few unexplained questions such as how the D&S factor in since they appear to be sharing with the BW guests most (if not all) of the time.

While we were waiting in line at the MK for a return trip to BW, I was (cough cough) evesdropping on other conversations and noticed that quite a few riders weren't staying at ANY Epcot resort. Several mentioned that they were staying off-site altogether. Almost everyone complained about the wait. My thought at the moment was, "Hey, like it or lump it! YOUR dues aren't footing the bill here for crummy service." (LOL! You tend to start thinking like this after you join DVC.)

So it wasn't just BW and BWV people I was wondering about. There were a LOT of non-BW riders. Does Disney figure or pro-rate an average of them into our "split?" Or are we paying for all comers? I'd guess we are - as just part of doing business.

DisFlan

 

[bicker]

We indeed do pay our share for the non-guests who visit our resort.

 

[DrTomorrow]

Whether one is of the opinion that Disney is infallible and never makes mistakes or, at the other extreme, one feels that Disney has fallen so far from their original principles of quality that they are now simply another money grubbing corporation only looking out for Number One, it's still difficult to see why simply questioning one of their procedures stirs up so much desire to defend the corporation in some of us. [...]

Since I'm playing along at home, let me make my position clear. I am NOT defending Disney; far from it. I'm actually cynical enough to think that all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals & negotiations are done that never see the light of day (my MBA accounting prof had some very interesting stories about what happens before the "public" documents are published ). And if PKS44 wants to spend his time on this - and be so good as to share the results - more power to him. I just don't understand the urge to do this; while I understand the concept of "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing", IMHO, challenging the division and allocation of transportation costs at WDW fails my "pick your battles" test.

But Go, PKS44, Go!

 

[manning]

Since I'm playing along at home, let me make my position clear. I am NOT defending Disney; far from it. I'm actually cynical enough to think that all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals & negotiations are done that never see the light of day (my MBA accounting prof had some very interesting stories about what happens before the "public" documents are published ). And if PKS44 wants to spend his time on this - and be so good as to share the results - more power to him. I just don't understand the urge to do this; while I understand the concept of "All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing", IMHO, challenging the division and allocation of transportation costs at WDW fails my "pick your battles" test.

But Go, PKS44, Go!

What battle would you pick???

 

[jarestel]

Since I'm playing along at home, let me make my position clear. I am NOT defending Disney; far from it. I'm actually cynical enough to think that all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals & negotiations are done that never see the light of day (my MBA accounting prof had some very interesting stories about what happens before the "public" documents are published ).

Good morning Dr T!
I get what you're saying. Re-phrasing my previous murky post, I'd just say whether one cares passionately or doesn't give a hoot about the BWV transportation budget isn't really my point. Rather I just don't see the harm in asking questions in order to better understand how things work at DVC.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

DVC spends our money to assemble, print and mail these reports to us. I believe it is for our review as real estate interest owners. It is appropriate for us to review and question the report's contents. The "Mother Disney will take care of us" mentality is not one I hold. There are Disney egos and careers tied up in these numbers (and $$'s), and it is conceivable that numbers get messaged to benefit the bottom line for some resort/manager. Who knows??

I'm glad members question such things rather than blindly accept an unfair situation. Disney/DVC should respond and correct errors when discovered.

IMO, the dues increases are high and too many here seem to think there is no waste in the operations of these resorts. DVC could do more to hold down dues but they don't have to if members don't question practices. Along with some wonderful vacation experiences, DVC dues increases have also exceeded my expectaions.

 

[manning]

I have been examining increases of the deluxe room rates for 2006 and am finding that those increases are lower than the DVC increases. There are a very small number of categories over 8% with the vast majority in the 2-4% categories with the mid point at about 3%. Someone who is good at this may be able to figure this out.

The pitch has been increases would be smaller with DVC. Taking into account the deep discounts of the last several years and this increase it hasn't been the case.

I welcome the efforts of PKS44 and others to look into things. And if this is what they like to do, more power to them. To some of you it is a waste of time, to others it is not.

They say DVC can't make a profit. If moneys are passing thru to Disney DVC isn't but Disney is. The question is, is this what is happening??

 

[franktsjr1]

100% agree with you.

 

[Johnnie Fedora]

They say DVC can't make a profit. If moneys are passing thru to Disney DVC isn't but Disney is. The question is, is this what is happening??

Yes...the shell game, easy to do especially with shared facilities at BCV VWL BWV.

 

[debloco]

Yes I will...because I think the danger of not questioning or stifling questioning of potential errors or disparities far outweighs the risk of any downside. One thing I have learned over the past 12 years as an owner is that Disney's subsidiary divisions operate almost as independent entities. You would think that DVC, Disney resorts, DCL, Disney Transportation, etc. all operate as one happy family under the Disney umbrella. In fact, they operate almost as independently as GM and Ford. They negotiate with each other in protection of their own interests, they have their own independent managements structures, and they maintain their own independent accounting structures. As a result, when DVC and Disney resorts independently each go to Disney Transportation to negotiate transportation expenses, do you really think they go with the intent of helping each other? No...they go to negotiate the best deal they can acquire for the line of business they represent. Don't think for a minute that Disney Resorts wouldn't jump on a chance to swing a deal that cuts their costs and shifts some of the transportation burden onto another line of business (e.g. DVC). So now the business owner side of me looks at the situation and says, "who is the bigger business unit (Disney resorts or DVC). Who has more assets and resources...who can employ the best accountants, attorneys, and negotiators...who has the most leverage with Disney Transportation...answer---Disney resorts)". Don't get me wrong...I have the utmost respect for the people that represent us as DVC owners. I just have a suspicion that the biggest players (Disney resorts) are working towards their best interests (and that may not be to DVC owner's benefit all the time).

So while I understand that you don't see PKS44's motivation, I guess I do understand PKS44's motivation...or at least why I would be motivated to ask the question. There are other business entities within Disney that would benefit from shifting their transportation burden away from their business unit and onto others (DVC for example). While the DVC folks have the best of intentions, they may be outgunned at times or have honestly missed salient points during their negotiations with Disney Transportation. There is nothing that ferrets out disparities like an owner with a financial interest in an investment. As I previously stated, I am willing to pay a fair price for my vacation, but I am not willing to subsidize someone else's. If that someone else is a patron of Grand Floridian and a rider of a bus under Disney Resorts contract, then I say let them pay their own way.

Whatever the outcome of this inquiry, I still respect PKS44's willingness to research the issue and insist on an answer to the question. Regardless of the outcome, we will all benefit from ensuring the right of an owner to respectfully ask a question and be answered.

ATCMickey

Hear, hear! Well said. Thank you, ATCMickey.

And thank you PKS44 as well. Please keep us posted.