Is it true that Disney will be restricting the monorail use to resort guests only ?

[pilferk]

Disneyland: It's happened during "gridlock" and park closings due to high attendance (in other words, during the most busy days of the year like NYE). They have a process in place to restrict access to the monorails to resort guests ONLY.

WDW: Never happen. First of all, it's one of only 2 ways back to the parking lot, and it's by far the more efficient of the 2 (the boat is a slow loader/mover). Second, I HIGHLY doubt they'd restrict access to the hotel monorail to resort guests only for one simple reason: They WANT the theme park guests frequenting the shops and restaurants on the monorail resorts. They're not going to make transport to those destinations more difficult, because it would drive away customers.

If there was ABSOLUTE gridlock, or some sort of mechanical failure that was resulting in a few trains out of service, or some sort of special event, I can see them trying to do it for a short period of time (hours, maybe) just to ensure that guests have access to a way to get back to their hotels. But barring that, in the way I'm guessing you mean (some sort of long term policy change)...nope. Not likely.

 

[pilferk]

Add me to the list of people who have seen the resort mono restricted.
I've only seen it once, and it was at park closing with a major mob scene at the mono station.

I have seen the boat driver to the Poly ask for room keys on more than one occasion.

MG

I've seen the boat drivers ask for keys at park exit, ESPECIALLY the Poly boat captain. I suspect that's because, with it's ease of access to the TTC, that non-Poly guests use it as a way to get back to parking (which is NOT what it's for).

 

[manning]

Disneyland: It's happened during "gridlock" and park closings due to high attendance (in other words, during the most busy days of the year like NYE). They have a process in place to restrict access to the monorails to resort guests ONLY.

WDW: Never happen. First of all, it's one of only 2 ways back to the parking lot, and it's by far the more efficient of the 2 (the boat is a slow loader/mover). Second, I HIGHLY doubt they'd restrict access to the hotel monorail to resort guests only for one simple reason: They WANT the theme park guests frequenting the shops and restaurants on the monorail resorts. They're not going to make transport to those destinations more difficult, because it would drive away customers.

If there was ABSOLUTE gridlock, or some sort of mechanical failure that was resulting in a few trains out of service, or some sort of special event, I can see them trying to do it for a short period of time (hours, maybe) just to ensure that guests have access to a way to get back to their hotels. But barring that, in the way I'm guessing you mean (some sort of long term policy change)...nope. Not likely.

As a hotel guest I would prefer exclusive use. After all I'm paying big money for a hotel room.

 

[BibbidyBobbidyBoo]

*phew*
After reading the title of this thread -I was sure hoping that wasn't the case!
After reading the rest of the thread- I agree that there are many reasons that surely this will never happen, atleast not at Disney World.

 

[pilferk]

As a hotel guest I would prefer exclusive use. After all I'm paying big money for a hotel room.

I would prefer a whole host of free in-room amenities, free poolside cabana's, and a personal "real" concierge service.

But that doesn't mean, for a variety of reasons, I'm likely to get them. You're paying "big money" for that hotel room based almost entirely on ONE factor: location.

Part of that "location" is that Disney largely views those resorts as almost part and parcel of the theme park. They WANT day guests going over to the Contemp for breakfast or dinner with Mickey. They WANT day guests going over to the GF for dinner at Citricos. They WANT day guests going to the Poly to shop and visit 'Ohana's. They're not going to do anything permanent to interfere with that revenue stream. And, as we've seen from Disney time and time again, if they DO something to meet a guest "preference", you may very likely get that "preference" at the incurrence of some extra cost (higher prices in the restarants, longer waits for a monorail (since less use means less trains needed), etc).

I've stayed at the Contemp a number of times, and the Poly a couple times. I "get" that it's frustrating, at park closing, to have to deal with the crowd. But the liklihood is that, unless there are some sort of extenuating circumstances (like those I mentioned), Disney isn't going to permanently make the resort monorail loop "exclusive". It just doesn't make that much sense to do it.

 

[bicker]

I would prefer a whole host of free in-room amenities, free poolside cabana's, and a personal "real" concierge service.

Those things cost "big money" by comparison to resort transportation exclusivity. Resort transportation exclusivity is even less costly to offer than exclusive late evenings at the parks. The only thing preventing resort transportation exclusivity from being a significant issue is that the need for it simply isn't that big.

 

[pilferk]

Those things cost "big money" by comparison to resort transportation exclusivity. Resort transportation exclusivity is even less costly to offer than exclusive late evenings at the parks. The only thing preventing resort transportation exclusivity from being a significant issue is that the need for it simply isn't that big.

True, that's one of the "variety of reasons" (and maybe the primary one) I won't get them. But both "things" cost Disney something, with what I suspect would be little in the way of reward. I CAN get many of those things, for pretty close to Disney's Deluxe resort rates (especially if we're looking at the GF)...just not with the same location benefit. Until location is no longer viewed by the consumer as being "more valuable" than those extra amenities, Disney has no impetus to give me the freebies I WANT. Ditto on resort transportation exclusivity.

And then, resort transportation exclusivity would COST them revenue because there would be no easy way for day guests to visit the resorts and spend money. How that loss of revenue would compare to the "big money" costs for those other things, I'm not sure. I think we can agree that it's SOMETHING. So I'm still relatively confident that Disney isn't going to cut off any revenue without some corresponding "balance" (not necessarily monetary, but with some worth like a sharp increase in guest satisfaction that might lead to increased bookings on property).

My point is this: We can all "want" stuff from Disney. It doesn't mean Disney is going to give it to us without good reason. And good reason isn't "because I'm paying big money for the hotel room". The fact you're still paying that "big money", WITHOUT all the stuff we're talkinga bout, is actually the OPPOSITE of what Disney considers "good reason". Right? What would be the "good reason" for resort transportation exclusivity (we're talking permanent change, not occasional use due to extenuating circumstances)? I just can't see one.

Maybe things will change down the road...maybe the Waldorf and 4S resorts will spur Disney on to taking steps for more amenities. But there is some pretty steep competition in the hotelier dept in Orlando, and they haven't taken those steps yet. Doesn't mean they won't, but I still think it's unlikely. Anything is possible, I guess.

 

[bicker]

My point is this: We can all "want" stuff from Disney. It doesn't mean Disney is going to give it to us without good reason. And good reason isn't "because I'm paying big money for the hotel room". The fact you're still paying that "big money", WITHOUT all the stuff we're talkinga bout, is actually the OPPOSITE of what Disney considers "good reason". Right?

Abso-friggen-lutely.

What would be the "good reason" for resort transportation exclusivity (we're talking permanent change, not occasional use due to extenuating circumstances)? I just can't see one.

Me neither. I do think, though, that way too many people refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the occasional imposition of the restriction, and fight tooth and nail to deny that it is the way it is, so much so that they do themselves and everyone who they influence a disservice, setting them all up for disappointment. There is a real issue there, an issue of customer satisfaction. The occasional imposition of the restriction is an imperative. It is not acceptable to hit folks paying big bucks ostensibly just for the advantage of convenience due to location with bad experiences because folks who aren't resort guests are utilizing the resort transportation. (Read that again if you're hitting the Reply button... that sentence almost surely does not say what you think it says.)

So one "good reason" for broadening the imposition of the restriction may be to shake free of the difficulties encountered from occasional imposition due to the conflicting expectations of different guests (reasonable expectations by resort guests; unfounded expectations by non-resort guests).

A lot of it would come down to just how much unfounded expectations are spread, and how much our society prompts those with unfounded expectations to exacerbating situations to the supplier's detriment. The best example of this is the guy who was "told" that he could walk in to Le Cellier for dinner at any time he wanted, and when told that there are no seatings left for the rest of the evening, proceeds to complain loudly and bombastically enough to disturb diners in the restaurant. If our society more often than not rewards those guests ("squeaky wheel gets the grease"), then that fosters the benefits of making rules far clearer and broader than they absolutely need to be.

And again, as I mentioned before, this is not specific to Disney. A great example of this from the cable television world is how the impression spread about how you could get "free cable" by employing measures that received service you weren't actually paying for. Cable's answer (really satellite's answer -- they did it first) was to encrypt everything. However, that harms everyone, even the folks who weren't transgressors, because now everyone needs a decryption box on every television.

So my point is this: A combination of the spreading of unfounded expectations, and a deepening of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" perspective could result in a situation where they will have to employ far more control over resort transportation than they do now -- and that in doing so, everyone could get hurt (resort guests would all have to carry their own resort IDs; lost IDs cause a problem; etc.)

 

[pilferk]

Abso-friggen-lutely.

Me neither. I do think, though, that way too many people refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the occasional imposition of the restriction, and fight tooth and nail to deny that it is the way it is, so much so that they do themselves and everyone who they influence a disservice, setting them all up for disappointment. There is a real issue there, an issue of customer satisfaction. The occasional imposition of the restriction is an imperative. It is not acceptable to hit folks paying big bucks ostensibly just for the advantage of convenience due to location with bad experiences because folks who aren't resort guests are utilizing the resort transportation. (Read that again if you're hitting the Reply button... that sentence almost surely does not say what you think it says.)

Actually, it does.

And I agree. It's imperative that Disney have the OPTION. And that Disney, when they run into the sorts of things I mention (gridlock, technical malfunction, special event), which I consider to be "exceptions to the Normal Operating Conditions", that they use it. Because the primary purpose of that loop is to get people back to their hotel rooms. And NOT being able to do that would be detrimental to Disney's guest service reputation, their ability to charge for that "location premium", etc. Basically, everything you mention.

And I 100% agree that as a "short term" (relativley) solution/option, it DOES happen, and folks should be aware that it MIGHT happen on their trip and to them. They should know their alternatives:

You can walk to the Contemp from MK.
You can walk to the Poly from the TTC.
You can cab it from the TTC to the GF. That last one is the one I suspect would have the most "objectors" because it incurs extra costs. There are other options, but none really particularly convenient or time effective.

So one "good reason" for broadening the imposition of the restriction may be to shake free of the difficulties encountered from occasional imposition due to the conflicting expectations of different guests (reasonable expectations by resort guests; unfounded expectations by non-resort guests).

A lot of it would come down to just how much unfounded expectations are spread, and how much our society prompts those with unfounded expectations to exacerbating situations to the supplier's detriment. The best example of this is the guy who was "told" that he could walk in to Le Cellier for dinner at any time he wanted, and when told that there are no seatings left for the rest of the evening, proceeds to complain loudly and bombastically enough to disturb diners in the restaurant. If our society more often than not rewards those guests ("squeaky wheel gets the grease"), then that fosters the benefits of making rules far clearer and broader than they absolutely need to be.

Gotcha.

I'm thinking you're thinking of something specific (ie: the Unofficial guide's stance that you should "fight" if asked for resort ID on Disney transportation) here?

But that's why I seperated out, originally, the "change policy so 100% of the time it's restricted" vs the "occasional situational changes to reflect operating conditions".

The first, I think, is unlikely. The second is always a possibility.

And again, as I mentioned before, this is not specific to Disney. A great example of this from the cable television world is how the impression spread about how you could get "free cable" by employing measures that received service you weren't actually paying for. Cable's answer (really satellite's answer -- they did it first) was to encrypt everything. However, that harms everyone, even the folks who weren't transgressors, because now everyone needs a decryption box on every television.

So my point is this: A combination of the spreading of unfounded expectations, and a deepening of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" perspective could result in a situation where they will have to employ far more control over resort transportation than they do now -- and that in doing so, everyone could get hurt (resort guests would all have to carry their own resort IDs; lost IDs cause a problem; etc.)

Gotcha. And I agree 100%.

In a nutshell (and using my example, above), people need to be aware (and accept) that the second is a possibility, so the first does not get "imposed" on us all.

 

[bicker]

Actually, it does.

Heheh... well, I meant that only if you thought you disagreed with it.

I'm thinking you're thinking of something specific (ie: the Unofficial guide's stance that you should "fight" if asked for resort ID on Disney transportation) here?

Perhaps the most egregious of examples of what I was referring to, because it was actually published by a purportedly reputable publisher. However, any and all fostering of unfounded expectations, and fostering of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" philosophy adds to the problem.

 

[manning]

Abso-friggen-lutely.

Me neither. I do think, though, that way too many people refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the occasional imposition of the restriction, and fight tooth and nail to deny that it is the way it is, so much so that they do themselves and everyone who they influence a disservice, setting them all up for disappointment. There is a real issue there, an issue of customer satisfaction. The occasional imposition of the restriction is an imperative. It is not acceptable to hit folks paying big bucks ostensibly just for the advantage of convenience due to location with bad experiences because folks who aren't resort guests are utilizing the resort transportation. (Read that again if you're hitting the Reply button... that sentence almost surely does not say what you think it says.)

So one "good reason" for broadening the imposition of the restriction may be to shake free of the difficulties encountered from occasional imposition due to the conflicting expectations of different guests (reasonable expectations by resort guests; unfounded expectations by non-resort guests).

A lot of it would come down to just how much unfounded expectations are spread, and how much our society prompts those with unfounded expectations to exacerbating situations to the supplier's detriment. The best example of this is the guy who was "told" that he could walk in to Le Cellier for dinner at any time he wanted, and when told that there are no seatings left for the rest of the evening, proceeds to complain loudly and bombastically enough to disturb diners in the restaurant. If our society more often than not rewards those guests ("squeaky wheel gets the grease"), then that fosters the benefits of making rules far clearer and broader than they absolutely need to be.

And again, as I mentioned before, this is not specific to Disney. A great example of this from the cable television world is how the impression spread about how you could get "free cable" by employing measures that received service you weren't actually paying for. Cable's answer (really satellite's answer -- they did it first) was to encrypt everything. However, that harms everyone, even the folks who weren't transgressors, because now everyone needs a decryption box on every television.

So my point is this: A combination of the spreading of unfounded expectations, and a deepening of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" perspective could result in a situation where they will have to employ far more control over resort transportation than they do now -- and that in doing so, everyone could get hurt (resort guests would all have to carry their own resort IDs; lost IDs cause a problem; etc.)

You would have to carry it to get into your room. When they did have the program it was one id to a party.

I think where the desire for id's are coming from are DVC owners who pay for the transportation through their dues. The most outcry is coming from the SSR where people are parking in DTD and going over and using the SSR buses. There I could see IDing the riders or putting some kind of control at the point where you can walk to DTD. Now there you could put in a gated system where you need a key card to pass thru. That way you wouldn't delay the bus flow.

 

[bicker]

You would have to carry it to get into your room. When they did have the program it was one id to a party.

I can imagine scenarios where someone, let's say a teen, might not have their hotel room key, but might be in need of transportation from a theme park back to their hotel, where Mom and Dad are waiting, perhaps cooking dinner in the DVC villa. SeewhatImean?

Of course: Easy fix: Just have the teen carry the room key. Still, different from what perhaps some might want to do.

 

[CR Resort Fan 4 Life]

I think where the desire for id's are coming from are DVC owners who pay for the transportation through their dues. The most outcry is coming from the SSR where people are parking in DTD and going over and using the SSR buses. There I could see IDing the riders or putting some kind of control at the point where you can walk to DTD. Now there you could put in a gated system where you need a key card to pass thru. That way you wouldn't delay the bus flow.

But what about those guests who might stay at a WDW Resort and take the bus to Downtown Disney, then decide to visit one of the theme parks after. On paper it would make the most sense to walk over towards Saratoga Springs and get on the bus from there, plus they wouldn't have their cars parked at Downtown Disney so they would not be getting around the rules. Plus WDW states their transportation system can be used by anyone.

 

[pilferk]

I think where the desire for id's are coming from are DVC owners who pay for the transportation through their dues. The most outcry is coming from the SSR where people are parking in DTD and going over and using the SSR buses. There I could see IDing the riders or putting some kind of control at the point where you can walk to DTD. Now there you could put in a gated system where you need a key card to pass thru. That way you wouldn't delay the bus flow.

There's another option that's was thrown around, too (specifically concerning the SSR/DTD "issue"):

Charge a nominal fee (say $10) for parking at DTD. If you're a resort guest, you get free parking. If you're a day guest, you get a ticket. If you spend more than a certain amount (and it can be really nominal, like $20 or so) at DTD, you get your ticket punched and you don't pay. No "validation" and you pay on your way out.

The thought process is that the couple of $ savings over parking in the Disney lots isn't worth the hike over to SSR and then onto their bus system. Likewise, the "validation route" would cost you more than parking on the Disney lots.

The biggest objection I've seen concerns "drop offs". During the discussion I don't recall seeing a good solution for that issue. But it was awhile back.

Keep in mind, I have no particular feeling about doing the above, one way or the other. I've just seen it mentioned and thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[pilferk]

But what about those guests who might stay at a WDW Resort and take the bus to Downtown Disney, then decide to visit one of the theme parks after. On paper it would make the most sense to walk over towards Saratoga Springs and get on the bus from there, plus they wouldn't have their cars parked at Downtown Disney so they would not be getting around the rules. Plus WDW states their transportation system can be used by anyone.

You could set the system up so that ANY resort room key would work...no matter what resort you're staying at.