Monorail Operating Costs and Reliability

[lockedoutlogic]

[QUOTE="lockedoutlogic, post: 53318507, member: 14765
And the computers are 100% because OSHA forced their hand. They can't take that kind of legal or PR hit.

Please provide a source or two to substantiate this claim. I continue to hear it, but without anything to back up the assertion.[/QUOTE]

Geez...I guess literal hour has started?

The sources are Sense, Common 2015 - and Experience, WDW 1964-.

I'm not suggesting I have the safe code or I'm hanging above the lobby in the sundial at TDO like mission impossible eavesdropping...

But it only takes a "moderate" knowldege of Disney operations to accept my stance and not question it.

They also....and this my actual experience... Likely Cut a deal with OSHA and NTSB to "lighten" the reports... Which were still not kind. Regulatory agencies always negotiate...because they are regulatory agencies and putting businesses that pay corporate taxes out of business isn't good for the pension fund.

Someone was killed, and Disney's magic choo choo system could easily have caused harm to your DD or DGD...
So now we are paying to make sure te potential is eliminated.

That's the narrative... You don't have to have a PR degree or work for CAA to just kinda go with the reasons behind the computer system.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Just because something makes sense does not mean it is a fact.

And just because I can't put together a PowerPoint presentation proving to a 100% certainty that the earth wasnt created in 4,000 BC...

Doesn't mean that's it's even remotely possible.

Somethings are what they are.

 

[rteetz]

Just because something makes sense does not mean it is a fact.

I don't see where we could get proof on this tho. Disney isn't going to come out and say it.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

And just because I can't put together a PowerPoint presentation proving to a 100% certainty that the earth wasnt created in 4,000 BC...

Doesn't mean that's it's even remotely possible.

Somethings are what they are.

The point I'm trying to make here is that some on this site, and you specifically, like to state things as fact based on your {common sense, experience with disney, experience in the industry, whatever else you can come up with} without ONE SHRED of factual evidence to back ANY of it up. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you state something is "100%" you have to have a solid source to back it up. Not a gut feeling. Finally, if you have any background in science, you know that some things (actually, lots of things) are NOT what they are. Or seem to be.

 

[LeeAndRobin]

I don't see where we could get proof on this tho. Disney isn't going to come out and say it.

True. So let's continue calling things facts and "100%" even though we have absolutely no way to prove it true.

 

[clsteve]

I have nothing to prove this... But I've thought since my time at wdw resorts that they will do EXACTLY that. Offload the employee and benefit expense to an industry operator (Marriott, Starwood, and holiday inn come to mind)

And that was during eisners tenure...who liked parks, capital construction and expansion, and wdw in particular. The current tanning bed suits like NONE of those things from all Indications.

One very important aspect to keep in mind is how "stock focused" this Team is.

Can you imagine the positive price impact and the universal kudos they would receive from the Street if/when they complete a crossover deal with a major hotelier?

Think what immediately dropping 15-20 thousand headcount off of the books would do - with all of their payroll, health, pension liabilities, plus potential asset and deprec shaving would do to the stock price, dividends boosts, balance sheet and outlook.

The Street loves them some divestiture and businesses getting leaner while getting back to their core competency. It's one of their favorite things

Iger would be Wall Street CEO of the decade.....

 

[Andrew015]

The point I'm trying to make here is that some on this site, and you specifically, like to state things as fact based on your {common sense, experience with disney, experience in the industry, whatever else you can come up with} without ONE SHRED of factual evidence to back ANY of it up. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you state something is "100%" you have to have a solid source to back it up. Not a gut feeling. Finally, if you have any background in science, you know that some things (actually, lots of things) are NOT what they are. Or seem to be.

If you want a 100% proof-positive answer, then you're asking your question in the wrong place. Don't you know you can't believe ANYTHING you read on the internet?!? Try knocking on TDO's doorstep and see if they will answer this question for you.

• Fatalities at Walt Disney World are bad.
• They get national headlines resulting in bad PR for the company and usually end up costing Disney millions of dollars in the form of settlements and negative PR.
• The monorail fatality was a result of human error. The only way to remove the possibility of a future occurrence is to eliminate the human element.
• Disney has a vested interest in removing the human element and eliminating the possibility of a future occurrence.

I think we can all agree that the above bullet points are factual, yes? Based on the facts at hand, there are more than a few "shreds" of evidence that support LockedOut's claim with a very high probability of certainty. Aside from being forced into automation by OSHA, the only other logical theory is that Disney made this call on their own. Despite popular belief, many "big, bad" companies actually do care about the safety of their employees and guests.

Whether the gun was placed to their head by OSHA or it was a self-directed internal initiative, what does it really matter?

 

[LeeAndRobin]

If you want a 100% proof-positive answer, then you're asking your question in the wrong place. Don't you know you can't believe ANYTHING you read on the internet?!? Try knocking on TDO's doorstep and see if they will answer this question for you.

• Fatalities at Walt Disney World are bad.
• They get national headlines resulting in bad PR for the company and usually end up costing Disney millions of dollars in the form of settlements and negative PR.
• The monorail fatality was a result of human error. The only way to remove the possibility of a future occurrence is to eliminate the human element.
• Disney has a vested interest in removing the human element and eliminating the possibility of a future occurrence.

I think we can all agree that the above bullet points are factual, yes?

Yes, completely agree.

Based on the facts at hand, there are more than a few "shreds" of evidence that support LockedOut's claim with a very high probability of certainty. Aside from being forced into automation by OSHA, the only other logical theory is that Disney made this call on their own. Despite popular belief, many "big, bad" companies actually do care about the safety of their employees and guests.

Whether the gun was placed to their head by OSHA or it was a self-directed internal initiative, what does it really matter?

Two things:
1) These upgrades didn't start until 5 *years* after the fatal accident. Seems like a long time to wait, regardless of who mandated it.

2) It really matters because the claim was that it was "100% that OSHA was the cause of the upgrades", without any proof to back that up. Had the statement been made that it was very likely that the upgrades were because of an OSHA mandate, I'd have no problem with it.

Call me crazy, but I think that when people don't have a verified source for something, they shouldn't claim to know it to "100%". That is the whole point of my argument.

 

[jade1]

Some good points for getting rid of the monorails.

Be interesting to see if they eliminated/removed the monorails, how fast it would fall into the "more for less" category, or would it be in the "just makes sense" category.

 

[Andrew015]

Yes, completely agree.



Two things:
1) These upgrades didn't start until 5 *years* after the fatal accident. Seems like a long time to wait, regardless of who mandated it.

2) It really matters because the claim was that it was "100% that OSHA was the cause of the upgrades", without any proof to back that up. Had the statement been made that it was very likely that the upgrades were because of an OSHA mandate, I'd have no problem with it.

Call me crazy, but I think that when people don't have a verified source for something, they shouldn't claim to know it to "100%". That is the whole point of my argument.

I can appreciate where you are coming from. I think we are simply trying to say that "they had no choice in the matter". Sure, literally speaking... they had choices. But at the end of the day, the writing from the lawyers - be it Disney lawyers, OSHA or other... was on the proverbial wall to ensure that a repeat occurrence would never happen again, and the only surefire way to safeguard against a repeat was by automating the system and removing the human element. Good for PR, shows commitment to the safety of the employees and guests alike - Oh.... and by the way, reduces labor and operating costs in the long term (seems to be an underlying theme there, but that's for another thread)... pretty much a no-brainer all the way around.

I do agree that 5 years is a long while after the fact, but it probably took half that time for an official accident report to be written and released. Then safety consultants, engineering studies, RFQ's, system design/build, etc. etc. These things take time. Also, don't discount the fact that immediate changes were made to the existing, manual process for switching cars off the tracks. If memory serves me correctly, the supervisor who gave the green light to move the trains was actually offsite having a meal at Denny's at the time of the accident, giving traffic commands via "walkie-talkie". This was actually allowed per the procedures that were in place at the time of the accident. You can bet that changed on day #1 following the accident along with many other procedures...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

The point I'm trying to make here is that some on this site, and you specifically, like to state things as fact based on your {common sense, experience with disney, experience in the industry, whatever else you can come up with} without ONE SHRED of factual evidence to back ANY of it up. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you state something is "100%" you have to have a solid source to back it up. Not a gut feeling. Finally, if you have any background in science, you know that some things (actually, lots of things) are NOT what they are. Or seem to be.

So you want "proof" on decisions that neither you...nor anyone here is entitled/have access to...

That's just straight argumentative.

"You can't prove me wrong... So I'm (or perhaps everyone) right. " - in essence

Nope...that's not how the human brain succeeds/gets ahead

You know that saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder?
-that's typically wrong.

Never thought the aftermath of the monorail accident would be debated...it's almost ridiculous.

 

[DDLand]

One very important aspect to keep in mind is how "stock focused" this Team is.

Can you imagine the positive price impact and the universal kudos they would receive from the Street if/when they complete a crossover deal with a major hotelier?

Think what immediately dropping 15-20 thousand headcount off of the books would do - with all of their payroll, health, pension liabilities, plus potential asset and deprec shaving would do to the stock price, dividends boosts, balance sheet and outlook.

The Street loves them some divestiture and businesses getting leaner while getting back to their core competency. It's one of their favorite things

Iger would be Wall Street CEO of the decade.....

I'm thinking of the restructuring costs, and my mind is blown.

 

[clsteve]

I'm thinking of the restructuring costs, and my mind is blown.

Into that nefarious M&A bucket those costs go. Shared, in one FY, to be forgotten afterwards.

Things like this scenario happen all the time. That one would be pretty minuscule, in the grand corporate scheme of things.

Now, making sure MB's still opened doors afterwards, that's a whole nother issue.........

 

[DDLand]

Everyone is entitled to your opinion...and your thoughts are well articulated

But in this case they are incorrect. This is not my "opinion"...it's my experience in this business talking. It's not even debatable.

You are attempting to build a counter argument with evidence that doesn't quite apply. Right stadium, wrong section.

As stated - pop century was halted because they realized that it would cannibalize all stars (that is a fact... It's not debatable...it's not different if you turn the mirror slightly). So they opened the first half a couple years late ( 2...if in recall). The "legendary years" were mothballed because they couldn't support them.

Now...about 7 years later...they finished them with a unique circumstance of the "cheaper" combo rooms. It's a developing niche that now has become a travel standard. A scenario like that may lead to new development... If a new angle arrives.

The other of the last hotels was DAK lodge. Which opened in April of 2001 with the second highest rack rate...more than the poly.

In a few months... With 40% occupancy ( pre 9/2001... Which is a common misconception)... They lower the rates and made the standards the same as wilderness... About $150 or so at the time in value...to prop up the numbers. Then they converted a large block to DVC at the first chance they got... Roughly 5 years later.

What is my point? That even those two hotels were not really necessary...and the demand hasn't risen greatly since. Eisner forced them... The rumor was...and their histories confirmed that. It was part of his policy to try and get animal kingdom on more solid ground... A plan that died with stockholder revolts in 03 and 04.

They have done nothing... Other than DVC and retrofit DVC since...going on 15 years.

Where is this need you speak of? If there were the demand, the profit potential in parks, or the profit potential in the hotels themselves... Would you doubt that they'd be built?

They been to busy to build overprice rooms and ticket generators? That can't be if they are such money makers, can it?

What should that tell you?
...
....

No?
Ok - an 83% or so occupancy rate across the board...so build some more and draw that down into the 70s, huh?

Well lets use the next "move" that is a strong possibility - in the hypothetical - to see what we can figure out...

A shocking...I still can't believe it... Rumor of a low 60s% occupancy at wilderness lodge...

Huh? Wha? Is up? Que?

That rate means head should ROLL. (Quietly... With pixie dust... Of course)

Not good enough - an empty room is cost without operating expense return and the potential of profit in the parks...
The reason is obvious... They've overpriced it heavily ($350 starting is appalling and theirs no going back)

So the "white knight" will ride in...and save it. Like it did DAK and Disney institute... And like it once propped up Wildeness, beach, and contemporary and is currently doing over at poly and the GF...

Again...where is the need?

So you invest some land and groundwork cost for Marriott to build over western way...and they foot the rest.

But wait - that can't work for disney because they can't send bands and use the Mickey shuttle and allow early entry...so that captive audience on the far side of the property will not go to EPCOT and will head to splendid china down on 192 right?


Or maybe... If that were even a problem ( it won't be)... You make them "official" or "preferred" and extend magical express...maybe send them a 45 cent Chinese band...provide Disney onsite transportation...
Poof... Your pumpkin just turned back into a carriage...

And if people flock to those instead of allstar or Caribbean... What will they do?
Wait... Because it won't happen. Because those that go to wdw hotels are being so thoroughly overcharged that Disney knows its NOT the hotel they're paying for...it's the D.
They're already caught...the game was over before it started.

There just isn't much of an argument here...I hope that idea will start to leach into the toosoil

To your first point, yes. Absolutely the Walt Disney World Resort overbuilt hotel rooms. Thousands too many. Demand did not exist to fill these beds. That was a serious strategic oversight. They forced through construction without looking at consequences, due in part to pride or rose colored glasses. WDW Resort suffered because of those choices for more then a decade. Especially during the two recessions. Those oversights likely cost them tens of millions.

I'd contend that to an extent the Deluxe Resorts are still broken. If the 60% occupancy rates are true, then it's almost undeniable. I do wonder if DVC itself has contributed to the stagnation. By eliminating the large population who were willing to pay deluxe rates they've destroyed key parts of their base.

Combine that with the hundreds of rooms DVC has added, you actually have a picture where there's a large pool of customers who can go to another source for stays by buying into DVC. Deluxe are an issue.

Deluxe aren't the only hotels Disney offers though. They're just a part of a picture. 89% occupancy rates would suggest that there's a large block of rooms that are staying very busy. Value and surprisingly Moderates seem most likely if Deluxe continues to be a laggard. These hotels are an example of increasing strength. This is in the face of hotel openings all over the Orlando area.

Art of Animation is a signal Disney is willing to pursue this market. The idea is actually compelling. Capture a huge portion of the market locking them on Disney property. Buying Disney food. Using Disney transportation. Checking out of Disney gift shops. That even as they've expanded this lower priced segment they've still been able to grow occupancy shows there's not only demand, but growing demand. If the theme parks continue to show YoY growth especially as the deluxe out price a large segment of population they'll be increased movement towards these Resorts. They're missing out on the Revenue potential coupled with the assured Disney guests if they don't move to fill that demand.

You're idea works to a point. However Disney is after first and foremost total guest control, and getting as much money from said guests. You're assuming that after inviting Marriott in they'd willingly accept giving up their propietery systems and branding. Marriott and other hotel operators are fiercely protective of their brands and technologies. Giving up the ability to collect customer data and statistics so Disney can further tighten their grip doesn't mix. Marriott would probably make it a condition to be totally exempt from My Magic because it almost exclusivly benefits Disney (there's the other side of the coin, My Magic can save big money I still think Marriott would be weary of introducing the technology even with the prospect of saving millions.). Transportation can be done, but DME, Dining Plan, and My Magic would be a no go. Those businesses not only can be lucrative, but also can be some of the most critical hooks keeping people on property. Disney needs these programs keeping a firm grip on as many guests as possible. Also Marriott would be sure to make their branding presence known throughout the hotel. Disney is going to love that brand upstaging.

Now the D. I think there's truth in that. Disney hotels are pretty great. Just not as great as some other hotels I've stayed at. With that said, their close integration with the Theme Parks makes them a force to be reckoned with. I think it's honestly best to be staying on property when on a Disney vacation. Why? Because of the powerful technologies and programs they have in place. I think you're right that because all those programs couldn't be rolled out to those guests Resorts would be mostly uneffected (not totally). The moat is strong. The flip side is what they lose by not adding those new guest to the Disney hold. It goes against every behavior Disney has utilized.


They love total control, total profit, total brand exposure. Among other things that's what My Magic was about ensuring. Are they going to variate from that business plan that has served them so well? I don't think it would be in their character.

 

[BlackMagicWoman]

True. So let's continue calling things facts and "100%" even though we have absolutely no way to prove it true.

I think you are 100% taking the 100% too literally.

 

[DDLand]

Into that nefarious M&A bucket those costs go. Shared, in one FY, to be forgotten afterwards.

Things like this scenario happen all the time. That one would be pretty minuscule, in the grand corporate scheme of things.

Now, making sure MB's still opened doors afterwards, that's a whole nother issue.........

Is it that simple though? You're assuming there are no operating synergies between the two halves. Everything from food contracts, to landscaping staff, to engineers would be up in the air. Disney has run their hotels a lot like their theme parks in many aspects. There are many areas where they share a back end. What does that mean? The spin off would result in both halves hiring hundreds to even thousands of new staff to handle jobs that the old company handled alone. Those costs would exist going forward, adding millions to expenses. I'm especially thinking of all those white collars they'd have to hire. Whereas one company had handled accounting, hr, and IT for both sides, now both companies would have to hire additional staff moving forward.

Also we'd have to look at how Disney is able to wield the size of its Resort to get the best prices on contracts. After chopping off a massive portion of its footprint they'd have reduced clout. Contractors would be knocking at their door asking for price readjustments (something tells me few of them would be favorable for Disney).

I'm actually trying to think of a comparable spinoff of a business that was so connected. I'm struggling off the top of my head. Cost incurred from this move would be through the roof. It would be like trying to spinoff a certain part of an airline, and then merge that part into an existing company. A logistical and technical marvel.

Yeah, My Magic would be a problem...

 

[Yellowstonetim]

One thing of which we can be absolutely certain. Disney will never get rid of the monorail unless they can replace it with a technological marvel that would wow everybody. The monorail is one of the icons of Disneyland and Disney World. Even people that haven't been to either place know about the monorail. It is second only to the castle. Therefore, they will find a way to maintain it or rebuild it until a maglev train or something else cool becomes feasible.

 

[clsteve]

Is it that simple though? You're assuming there are no operating synergies between the two halves. Everything from food contracts, to landscaping staff, to engineers would be up in the air. Disney has run their hotels a lot like their theme parks in many aspects. There are many areas where they share a back end. What does that mean? The spin off would result in both halves hiring hundreds to even thousands of new staff to handle jobs that the old company handled alone. Those costs would exist going forward, adding millions to expenses. I'm especially thinking of all those white collars they'd have to hire. Whereas one company had handled accounting, hr, and IT for both sides, now both companies would have to hire additional staff moving forward.

Also we'd have to look at how Disney is able to wield the size of its Resort to get the best prices on contracts. After chopping off a massive portion of its footprint they'd have reduced clout. Contractors would be knocking at their door asking for price readjustments (something tells me few of them would be favorable for Disney).

I'm actually trying to think of a comparable spinoff of a business that was so connected. I'm struggling off the top of my head. Cost incurred from this move would be through the roof. It would be like trying to spinoff a certain part of an airline, and then merge that part into an existing company. A logistical and technical marvel.

Yeah, My Magic would be a problem...

Nah.

You're making it sound way harder than it is. And way overblowing the costs. Just use Marriott as an example. They do this all of the time and have teams who do this all of the time as their career - going in and merging hotel chains into their portfolio worldwide. Look it up. Not little chains. Big ones with huge hotels. You can easily check that one

Do you really think that they would have less clout with vendors and contractors? Hardly. they have over 700,000 rooms in their portfolio. Disney is a minor player compared to them. Trust me, what you point out as a concern would be about a 15 minute discussion, with Marriott saying with a chuckle "we got it..."

You're getting into part of my footprint, now. M&A and combining large companies and their infrastructure. The employee side is often the easiest. It's amazing what sweetening the pot with a bonus at the end of a year, or additional 401K contrib to move over given after a year as examples. So many ways to make it desirable.

You'd be shocked how many actually relish the move. In this case, they'd be going to a company who's sole business is hotels and not just the thing we have to do. Better chance for upward mobility, better chance for re-assignment worldwide, etc.

I've seen it.

Disney would be shedding not hiring. Marriott would be absorbing - and absorbing into a larger corp with better efficiency since that's all they do and all they've done for a hundred years or so.

This would be Standard Operating Procedure for a company such as them. They bite off big chunks like this yearly, without a hitch.....

 

[LeeAndRobin]

Apropos of nothing at all, but last night I saw a new Disney commercial. A cast member is asking the members of a family what they want to do. The son says "I want to ride the monorail!". Later in the commercial, the monorail is prominently featured. It would not seem that Disney would advertise the monorail on a national commercial if they were planning to remove it soon....

 

[LeeAndRobin]

So you want "proof" on decisions that neither you...nor anyone here is entitled/have access to...

That's just straight argumentative.

Nope, I want people like you to stop stating things as "fact" and "100%" when they in fact have no proof at all. As I said above, if such statements were worded as "likely" or "highly likely" then there would be no problem.

"You can't prove me wrong... So I'm (or perhaps everyone) right. " - in essence

That's not at all what I am getting at. See above.

Nope...that's not how the human brain succeeds/gets ahead

Spewing "facts" that are in fact just rumors is certainly NOT how we get ahead. Only by dealing in facts do we progress. Rumors are fun and entertaining, but do nothing to advance civilization. In many cases, they act as a setback. To be clear, I have no problems reading Disney rumors. I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy are people who go beyond to the point that they start believing their rumors and stating them as immutable facts. It's an easy trap to fall into.

You know that saying "truth is in the eye of the beholder?
-that's typically wrong.

Yes, it is typically wrong. But it seems to me to be the maxim that you operate by, given your emphatic statements of "fact" here for which you can provide no proof.