On the contrary, that view is to maximize current assets, while minimizing risk. To maximize the assets you have to build them. It doesn't preclude opportunity costs, it says to make those expenditures when they make the most sense, rather than wasting capital on a more risky venture.
Yes, I'm well aware of Disney's recent marketing efforts, and I'm also well aware that its a market they have unsuccessfully chased before.
True, which doesn't mean they won't be successful this time, given the new offerings.
No, I don't. There is not a significant enough difference in the price points to prevent significant overlap.
In your opinion. However, the rate of occupancy, off site,with similar price differences, would lead one to believe that opinion is not correct.
That's so far off from reality I'm not sure how to respond to it. WDW is the major draw in the area. Most vacationers in the Orlando area hotels make WDW at least a significant portion of their trip. And now you suggest it's not even remotely valid to say that the majority of units in a development right outside WDW's gates on Disney-owned property will be occupied by WDW guests?
No, I meant by WDW RESORT guests. I should have been more clear. In other words, you're assuming that 4k to 5k rooms will be completely siphoned from AS or POP resorts.
And again, this is where your argument suffers a significant breakdown. They aren't 4000-5000 "superbudget" rooms. If these are superbudget, what will you call the quality budget establishments without the location benefit? How about the less than quality establishments? The new rooms are going to be priced higher than these other categories, yet lower than Disney's "value" rooms and there isn't enough space in there to create a unique market.
In your opinion. As for terminology, you can choose whatever you want to term them...they are rooms between Disney's budget offering at $99 per night and the $35 per night offerings like super 8. Saying the market is too thin to slice ignores the fact that there is almost as much $ wise, and more % wise, between the Disney value hotels and the moderates. And given the flourishing of comfort inn and best westerns in precisely that price range, obviously there IS a market for them. There is now that self same option a bit closer than some.
I don't assume anything, which is where the heart of our difference on this subject lies.
So you have evidence to support your position,then? By all means, if you have access to numbers and data not shown here, please present it. I suspect, however, you don't. So you're forming your opinion completely on supposition.....
I never said they needed to predict 9/11. However, most other tourist destinations had fully recovered by 2005, and even WDW set new attendance records in 2006. Yet the 2nd half of Pop isn't even being worked on. Clearly there were significant miscalculations.
No, it was an appropriate calculation at the time. Assuming similar growth trends that they'd seen throughout the late 90's, 2006 attendance numbers would have been seen in 2002 or 2003. Again, the "collapse" and recovery process significantly affected growth trending....after the project was well under way.
And again, I've not seen any evidence that recovery has trully been "complete"...as in all numbers have returned to the pre-9/11 numbers. If you have some, please...I'd love to see it. I've seen evidence of some numbers come back up, but not all of them.
9/11 could explain a timing delay of a year or 3, but it doesn't explain why Pop2 still sits as it is.
Not entirely, but for the most part, it does. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not is another story. Add in other factors that are limiting destination travel....and look at their overall numbers....and it's pretty clear that things have changed significantly since 2000 - 2001.
That's a weak excuse. The GF never reached 5 stars in any time period, while other operators acheived it then and now. Its not like the only resorts to get 5-stars are those built in the last 5 years.
No, but significant changes have been made in older resorts, to keep them at the 5* level, which, logistically,would be difficult if not impossible to achieve at the GF. Again, it may have been concieved as a 5* resort, but it wasn't built as one. I said precisely that.
Its actually a 4 with
AAA and a 3 with Mobil.
And it's higher with other ratings guides....so I think calling it a 4, to PERHAPS 4 1/2, is apt.
Another ridiculous argument. Disney simply chooses not to try anymore, and instead take the "less risky", and therefore less rewarding way out. And again, the whole point to the GF tangent is that Disney's "bean counters" thought they could do it. Did you disagree with them then, or did you simply assume they were right?
In your opinion. You THINK it would be more rewarding to try to cater to that clientele. You point out that disney tried with the GF. They were not successful. So better to risk more capital, and risk not getting what you're after, over partnering with a proven commodity? Yeah, that makes good business sense....Again, you're displaying a lack of knowledge about the market they're trying to cater to.
No, you are ignoring the fact that 9/11 no longer impacts demand, and hasn't for several years. It was a valid argument in 2003, not now.
All the way back to the original point: You can't compare numbers from 2000 to numbers now, because too much has changed, INCLUDING 9/11 which had/has some direct impact, STILL (or rather, the resulting concerns from it). You don't like the argument, which doesn't make it invalid. It had such a dramatic impact, it's still being felt. Not as direclty as it once was, but financial analysts still cite it. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Wall Street.
So many success that the stock languished for over 10 years, and even the recent uptick doesn't come close to making up for that.
The stock has done fine. Analysts still cite Disney quite well. The sky is not falling. I'm curious (and serious): Do you OWN Disney stock?
And for successes, you include DL's 50th? A nice short term marketing promotion yes, but its a drop in the bucket compared to the opportunity lost with something like DCA or DSP.
It was just a simple list of examples, no more eggregious than listing AK as a "failure".
You're main evidence continues to be that you trust them. If that works for you, fine, but it doesn't go very far in discussions.
It goes just as far as using "I don't trust them" as reasoning.....
They are resolved enough for tourism to make a full recovery, and in many cases for it to have made that recovery several years ago. People may think about all those things, but they are back to taking their vacations and have been for several years.
Again, numbers to prove tourism has made a full recovery? Airlines don't think so. Many hotel chains don't think so. Many cruise lines don't think so. At least not to the "bottom line" numbers. Unless you have prove to the contrary?
