Monorail Operating Costs and Reliability

[lockedoutlogic]

It is not the main roads, its the approaches, driveways, bus stops at the resorts........all are limited and crowded already.

Actually yes you can beyond 4 walls........looks at the recent addition of hotel rooms and the present additions and the plans to add a western theme hotel between WL and FW and a non Disney resort by the AK.........all adding buses .

AKK

Ok...you're off on this one.

First, it's already been covered - there is no need for more buses and loops at hotels. They're already at high occupancy (typically) and any bump would be small and insignificant.

Second,

They're not really "adding" rooms - they are converting. The next DVC "expansion" will likely be a conversion of a significant chunk of wilderness lodge. That could lead to a net loss of actual rooms...but alleviate their lack of success in moving $350 rooms with a $200 value (who'da saw
That coming?!?)

There are no "new hotels" coming...
I'm sure they have a million plans and have done feasibility studies out the wazzle...

But it doesn't make any sense to build new wdw hotels - other than DVC. And not only that - look at their attitude towards this:
The last groundbreaking for a new, traditional wdw hotel was in January of 2001...I was there...

It was pop century.

So even if you accept that 2000-2010 was a bad
Decade (it wasnt...but for arguments sake we'll play make believe)...
They have shown no need to build new hotels. The only non-DVC project was a third party tract - "flamingo crossing" and the third party four seasons.

Why?
Labor...pure and simple. A certain wdw hotel - name withheld to protect
The innocent - with 2,112 rooms had a staff of roughly 1,050 in 2002. 2 to 1...and though that included part timers and c/t...it did not include transportation, horticulture, pest control, logistics and support services.

The labor is massive. And why DVC is such a good deal
Beyond the down payments. They empty the trash on the 4th day and clean the room after 8...
The majority of DVC stays never require a housekeeper. And don't doubt that's the future. Not towel animals.

Even the most recent 3 "additions" to DVC - ak, contemporary, and GF...added zero impact to the transportation at those places - as I've stayed at all and frequent 2 and there is - honestly - zero impact.

I digress...but I'm rejecting the notion that resorts will be the source of more bus strain. Neither the logistics nor the economics point to that.

I agree with "four wallsrock"

I could also argue that the attendance increases over the last few years are due to offsite influx - because of high occupancy rates - and an expansion of that would stress the parking trams more than any other system in use. But we'll
Leave that alone.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Ok...you're off on this one.

First, it's already been covered - there is no need for more buses and loops at hotels. They're already at high occupancy (typically) and any bump would be small and insignificant.

Second,

They're not really "adding" rooms - they are converting. The next DVC "expansion" will likely be a conversion of a significant chunk of wilderness lodge. That could lead to a net loss of actual rooms...but alleviate their lack of success in moving $350 rooms with a $200 value (who'da saw
That coming?!?)

There are no "new hotels" coming...
I'm sure they have a million plans and have done feasibility studies out the wazzle...

But it doesn't make any sense to build new wdw hotels - other than DVC. And not only that - look at their attitude towards this:
The last groundbreaking for a new, traditional wdw hotel was in January of 2001...I was there...

It was pop century.

So even if you accept that 2000-2010 was a bad
Decade (it wasnt...but for arguments sake we'll play make believe)...
They have shown no need to build new hotels. The only non-DVC project was a third party track - "flamingo crossing" and the third party four seasons.

Why?
Labor...pure and simple. A certain wdw hotel - name withheld to protect
The innocent - with 2,112 rooms had a staff of roughly 1,050 in 2002. 2 to 1...and though that included part timer sand c/t...it did not include transportation, horticulture, pest control, logistics and support services.

The labor is massive. And why DVC is such a good deal
Beyond the down payments. They empty the yeah on the 4th day and clean the room after 8...
The majority of DVC stays never require a housekeeper. And don't doubt that's the future. Not towel animals.

Even the most 3 "additions" to DVC - ak, contemporary, and GF...added zero impact to the transportation at those places - as I've stayed at all and frequent 2 and there is - honestly - zero impact.

I digress...but I'm rejecting the notion that resorts will be the source of more bus strain. Neither the logistics not the economics point to that.

I agree with "four wallsrock"

I could also argue that the attendance increases over the last few years are due to offsite influx - because of high occupancy rates - and an expansion of that would stress the parlor trams more than any other system in use. But we'll
Leave that alone.

Sorry Logic, I disagree for all the reasons I posted, including the new Hotels. The last Disney announcement 2 or 3 years ago is the reason the Western themed Hotel was held up, was they decided to build the added rooms to the GF. You cannot add rooms and not have a impact and with the bus service its been steady..........more buses, more crowded stations and roads..............more delays.

We can keep going back and forth, but only time will time what will happen.

AKK

 

[Andrew015]

I'd be shocked if we see any new, Disney-owned and operated hotel construction - aside from converting existing assets to DVC - in the next decade. The Fort Wilderness DVC thing has been kicked around for at least 5 years - perhaps longer, and I think it will be shelved indefinitely in favor of conversion at WL.

I agree with LockedOut on this one. We've seen their direction over the past decade (no new additions, full steam ahead DVC conversion), and we also see the future (more of the same, third party Four Seasons & Flamingo Crossings). They haven't proven otherwise, and to expect anything to the contrary is really just a shot in the dark.

 

[DDLand]

Ok...you're off on this one.

First, it's already been covered - there is no need for more buses and loops at hotels. They're already at high occupancy (typically) and any bump would be small and insignificant.

Second,

They're not really "adding" rooms - they are converting. The next DVC "expansion" will likely be a conversion of a significant chunk of wilderness lodge. That could lead to a net loss of actual rooms...but alleviate their lack of success in moving $350 rooms with a $200 value (who'da saw
That coming?!?)

There are no "new hotels" coming...
I'm sure they have a million plans and have done feasibility studies out the wazzle...

But it doesn't make any sense to build new wdw hotels - other than DVC. And not only that - look at their attitude towards this:
The last groundbreaking for a new, traditional wdw hotel was in January of 2001...I was there...

It was pop century.

So even if you accept that 2000-2010 was a bad
Decade (it wasnt...but for arguments sake we'll play make believe)...
They have shown no need to build new hotels. The only non-DVC project was a third party track - "flamingo crossing" and the third party four seasons.

Why?
Labor...pure and simple. A certain wdw hotel - name withheld to protect
The innocent - with 2,112 rooms had a staff of roughly 1,050 in 2002. 2 to 1...and though that included part timer sand c/t...it did not include transportation, horticulture, pest control, logistics and support services.

The labor is massive. And why DVC is such a good deal
Beyond the down payments. They empty the yeah on the 4th day and clean the room after 8...
The majority of DVC stays never require a housekeeper. And don't doubt that's the future. Not towel animals.

Even the most 3 "additions" to DVC - ak, contemporary, and GF...added zero impact to the transportation at those places - as I've stayed at all and frequent 2 and there is - honestly - zero impact.

I digress...but I'm rejecting the notion that resorts will be the source of more bus strain. Neither the logistics not the economics point to that.

I agree with "four wallsrock"

I could also argue that the attendance increases over the last few years are due to offsite influx - because of high occupancy rates - and an expansion of that would stress the parlor trams more than any other system in use. But we'll
Leave that alone.

"that when you see occupancy in that kind of range, you are getting close to pretty much a full house. And those were historically the numbers at which we started to think about expanding capacity. "
Jay Rasulo



I get it, Disney can't build new hotels because there's a major labor shortage. https://www.smallworldvacations.com/blog/post.cfm/disney-art-of-animation-opens

That would mean all the hotels would be affected by this. Therefore there would be few to no new hotel openings.

http://florida.legoland.com/en/abou...ida-Announces-LEGOLAND-Hotel-Opening-in-2015/

http://wdwnt.com/blog/2014/10/flami...hotels-as-wdw-prepares-for-massive-expansion/

http://laughingplace.com/w/news/201...rlando-officially-opens-at-walt-disney-world/
http://www.**************.net/2014/...tel-to-open-summer-2016-with-caribbean-flair/

While there's certainly incentive to build DVC, I don't think it's going to torpedo any future hotel plans. Labor is bad excuse when other Resort operators are bringing on thousands of hotel rooms in the Southern Orlando region. What makes Universal Orlando and Lowes able to get employees, and not Disney?

Busses would likely get bottle necked at the drop off delivery areas because they require extensive realestate to have individual on and off load areas. With that said, I don't believe that bus system can't handle future additions of new guests. I'm still not convinced they could shuttle thousands of guests around 7 seas lagoon though.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Several of my right honorable friends are using rumors and heresay... The buffalo crossing specifically...as the justification for an expansion of resorts that simply does not exist and should be tossed out.

The logical move for Disney was and is flamingo crossing...where you still have a captive audience but third party financed operation.

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what wdw hotels represent: they represent a resorvoir of customers to empty into the parks... And the giftshops where most of the profit lies. The revenue at the hotels are mostly gobbled up by the operation.

Which means if a chain will supply the tourists and you dump the headache of labor - you do it. If holiday inn has to pay $12 an hour to get a desk clerk... Something Disney is uncomfortable with... Then you do it.

There is not gonna be a golden age renaissance of hotel construction like the 90's...the conditions have changed. Disney knows that... As I can attest they knew it 10-15 years ago.

 

[clsteve]

I get it, Disney can't build new hotels because there's a major labor shortage.

That would mean all the hotels would be affected by this. Therefore there would be few to no new hotel openings.

While there's certainly incentive to build DVC, I don't think it's going to torpedo any future hotel plans. Labor is bad excuse when other Resort operators are bringing on thousands of hotel rooms in the Southern Orlando region. What makes Universal Orlando and Lowes able to get employees, and not Disney?

Potential labor shortage, while a consideration, is a smaller factor.

The follow-on payroll, payroll liabilities (esp. health care costs) and pension liabilities are a bigger concern, with benefits costs more than doubling since 2006. As is the capex outlay of a large hotel property. Disney doesn't do small. Plus, they've a few capex projects ongoing and upcoming in international, it would seem...

Care to take a guess what the BoD would say right now to breaking ground on a big ole Moderate...?

Logic pointed out the pretty industry standard 1 to 2 ratio empl/rm in his post and the areas that doesn't cover. You also have to take into account the follow-on uptick in support services - everything from IT, to acctg, to HR.

Those are predominately white collar. they cause a higher uptick in those payroll/pension/health care liabilities.

So, for a 2500 room facility at a 1.3 to 2 ratio..... 1625 employees.

For perspective AK employs around 3000.

For more perspective, just look at every initiative the past few years - all focused on shedding headcount as quickly as possible - including and especially NextGen.

If there's going to be hotel groundbreaking at WDW, I'd expect Disney to be collecting a yearly licensing fee from whomever is holding the shovel....

 

[Andrew015]

There is not gonna be a golden age renaissance of hotel construction like the 90's...the conditions have changed. Disney knows that... As I can attest they knew it 10-15 years ago.

To further this point, the only thing that would swing the proverbial pendulum back into favor of Disney building, owning and operating their own resorts would be if the 3rd party path somehow had a negative impact on attendance, retention, and overall... profitability.

By and large, the age of Disney building "grand" resorts has come and gone, at least for the foreseeable future. The cost to build a Poly/GF/WL caliber hotel is staggering, and in order to justify biting off such a large chunk of change, they turn around and charge the Disney faithful $450+ rack rates for what amounts to average at best accommodations with a sprinkle of pixie dust. This hasn't proven to be a very successful model as evident by the struggling occupancy numbers at the deluxe resorts as well as the race to convert as much as possible in all deluxe locations to DVC. Disney abandoned the high-price model and shifted gears to try the "value" approach during their last effort - Pop Century. That was over a decade ago, and we haven't seen another effort since, so that tells you how well that experiment went. Ever since, the path has been convert to DVC and outsource.

There won't be a pendulum change unless the numbers dictate doing so, but unfortunately, there hasn't been a financial argument that favored going down this path in many, many years, and there isn't one on the table today. IMHO, Disney got too greedy with the room rates, and that is what ultimately caused the in-house model to fail.

Until the masses start crying for overpriced Disney "magic" - and by crying - I mean showing up with fistfuls of dollars because the 3rd party options "just aren't cutting it"... we won't be seeing any Disney-owned shovels hitting the ground anytime soon. And from everything that I've heard/read about the new Four Seasons, I don't think too many people are picketing on Buena Vista Dr. for better options...

 

[DDLand]

The logical move for Disney was and is flamingo crossing...where you still have a captive audience but third party financed operation.

Just not equipped with My Magic, using Magical Express, and not being exclusively on WDW transportation. So a third party can get a share of the profits, and destroy the Resort hold.

Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of what wdw hotels represent: they represent a resorvoir of customers to empty into the parks... And the giftshops where most of the profit lies. The revenue at the hotels are mostly gobbled up by the operation.

Yeah, which one does a better job holding in water, My Magic or a typical key card? By outsourcing you're giving up the chance for Magic Bands, and a solid guest.

There is not gonna be a golden age renaissance of hotel construction like the 90's...the conditions have changed. Disney knows that... As I can attest they knew it 10-15 years ago.

Why does it have to be a "Renaissance?" Can't it just be additions to hotel inventory like Art of Animation?

 

[rteetz]

Just not equipped with My Magic, using Magical Express, and not being exclusively on WDW transportation. So a third party can get a share of the profits, and destroy the Resort hold.

Yeah, which one does a better job holding in water, My Magic or a typical key card? By outsourcing you're giving up the chance for Magic Bands, and a solid guest.


Why does it have to be a "Renaissance?" Can't it just be additions to hotel inventory like Art of Animation?

The flamingo crossings hotels won't make a dent in the resort hold. This is the way disney is going tho, Marriotts, four seasons, etc.

Disney does like when people buy magic bands tho because that's more profit.

The art of animation was already partially built that's why they finished. If it wasn't already partially built I don't think disney would've built that resort. DVC is going to be the way Disney continues to go without a doubt.

 

[DDLand]

Potential labor shortage, while a consideration, is a smaller factor.

The follow-on payroll, payroll liabilities (esp. health care costs) and pension liabilities are a bigger concern, with benefits costs more than doubling since 2006. As is the capex outlay of a large hotel property. Disney doesn't do small. Plus, they've a few capex projects ongoing and upcoming in international, it would seem...

Care to take a guess what the BoD would say right now to breaking ground on a big ole Moderate...?

Logic pointed out the pretty industry standard 1 to 2 ratio empl/rm in his post and the areas that doesn't cover. You also have to take into account the follow-on uptick in support services - everything from IT, to acctg, to HR.

Those are predominately white collar. they cause a higher uptick in those payroll/pension/health care liabilities.

So, for a 2500 room facility at a 1.3 to 2 ratio..... 1625 employees.

For perspective AK employs around 3000.

For more perspective, just look at every initiative the past few years - all focused on shedding headcount as quickly as possible - including and especially NextGen.

If there's going to be hotel groundbreaking at WDW, I'd expect Disney to be collecting a yearly licensing fee from whomever is holding the shovel....

What doesn't make sense about your argument is the fact that Disney has been focused singularly on efficiency. This efficiency means that they'd be most profitable running the hotels themselves. Unless Disney could make an argument that the 3rd Party was more efficient at running the hotel there's no reason to outsource. Because Disney has one of (if not) the best employee management and supply chain management teams in Orlando they'd also gain from efficiency there as well. Let's think about this for a second on the Hotel Pros side:
1) Innovative technologies give Disney an edge on operations cost savings.
2) Disney has well established supply chain management operations.
3) They have a well established employee management infrastructure.
4) Guest are a captive audience, and buy exclusively from Disney properties.
5) Guests gain loyalty for WDW exclusively.
6) Full Profit

Con
1) Partial Profit
2) Less control over guests
3) Overall less efficient operations
4) Limited loyalty

They're sacrificing profit. It's okay to add on additional employees if the profit grows with it.

 

[DDLand]

The flamingo crossings hotels won't make a dent in the resort hold. This is the way disney is going tho, Marriotts, four seasons, etc.

Disney does like when people buy magic bands tho because that's more profit.

The art of animation was already partially built that's why they finished. If it wasn't already partially built I don't think disney would've built that resort. DVC is going to be the way Disney continues to go without a doubt.

Yeah they will. If you're not using DME, My Magic, EMH, Disney, etc. that weakens the hold. Aren't you all the same people who say Disney wants to control every aspect of your life while on vacation? This is clearly a discrepancy as your Resort stay is one of the most critical areas to have that strategic hold on guests. If Disney has any ambitions making sure there are enough hotel rooms to support future demands is critical. Letting Marriott have the guests is not good longterm.

I'm less concerned about sales. I'm more concerned with how they're used as a tool to keep everyone captive.

Yeah, I know. That's not why they finished it though. They finished it because it was the speediest way to add the capacity that WDW has needed. DVC's barrier of entry is way too high. Not everyone wants DVC. There isn't a limitless supply of DVC buyers. There is a much larger supply of casual guest who want to visit Disney for a week. Disney can only keep that up for a little longer. Build more DVC is hardly a compelling total picture.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

There's so many misconceptions spiraling here...I think I might have had my eyes cross...

There's a fundamental lack of understanding of the hotel business...and how Disney dabbled in that business...

They're gonna build and run new rack rate hotels with all the headaches and costs because of rubber bands, the airport shuttle, and early entry?

Did I read that right?

You do realize that they begrudgingly pay for those buses, right?
Abs they have tinkered with the extra hours almost nonstop because they didnt feel like they were getting the return on costs?

And besides...neither would ever justify the costs of hotels...

Funny thing about EMH...when are people least likely to shop?

 

[DDLand]

There's so many misconceptions spiraling here...I think I might have had my eyes cross...

There's a fundamental lack of understanding of the hotel business...and how Disney dabbled in that business...

They're gonna build and run new rack rate hotels with all the headaches and costs because of rubber bands, the airport shuttle, and early entry?

Did I read that right?

You do realize that they begrudgingly pay for those buses, right?
Abs they have tinkered with the extra hours almost nonstop because they didnt feel like they were getting the return on costs?

And besides...neither would ever justify the costs of hotels...

Funny thing about EMH...when are people least likely to shop?

Your reservoir argument is extremely weak if they aren't actually keeping guests on property, and getting maximum rate of return on each guest.

Why do they "begrudgingly" put up with these problems if they weren't concerned with keeping people on property? That's the point Lockedout, controlling the entire experience is the point. Letting Marriott control the guest experience is idiotic because it leaves money on the table.

Of course airport shuttle aren't going to pay for new hotels. They're another reason for staying on property. Which is the point.

EMH and DME paying for a new hotel? What? The Resort Hold is the single most important factor in all this. Those are just a factors in ensuring that the hold remains strong.

 

[DisitDisitgood]

We've all seen it. The subject of the WDW monorail enters a tread, and it is only a few posts before someone inevitably says one or more of the following things:

1) The monorail is very expensive to operate.

2) The monorail breaks down (all the time, constantly, a lot).

3) It would be cheaper to replace the monorail with buses.

What is almost NEVER stated is any justification/data to back up the above statements. I'd be interested to see some data backing these statements up, if indeed there actually is any.

And to be clear, I'm interested in data. Such things as operating costs, maintenance costs, breakdown occurrences, uptime percentages, and costs to replace the monorail with buses that could carry the same volume to the same locations at the same speed (including load/unload times).

What I am not interested in are opinions unsubstantiated by any data to back them up.

Cheers,
--Lee

Try the Florida agency that regulates public transit or rides. I don't know what the monorail qualifies as I am guessing it's public transit.

Most states require local jurisdictions (I.e. Reedy Creek) to file operational statistics on transportation. If it's considered a theme park ride there will be more data about operations.

You likely will need to FOIA this information. It's also possible someone has done this. A Google search might turn up an article quoting some data.

Either way good luck.

 

[wallrock]

Your reservoir argument is extremely weak if they aren't actually keeping guests on property, and getting maximum rate of return on each guest.

Why do they "begrudgingly" put up with these problems if they weren't concerned with keeping people on property? That's the point Lockedout, controlling the entire experience is the point. Letting Marriott control the guest experience is idiotic because it leaves money on the table.

Of course airport shuttle aren't going to pay for new hotels. They're another reason for staying on property. Which is the point.

EMH and DME paying for a new hotel? What? The Resort Hold is the single most important factor in all this. Those are just a factors in ensuring that the hold remains strong.

Marriott will control the guest when they step into the lobby. Upon exiting Disney picks up the reins - and the profits. This keeps Disney from having to deal with the cost of supporting the place you put your head each night.

That 'on property' concept is just geography. Marriott and Starwood will have a slice of land provided by Disney (leased naturally) with the option of making the décor all Disneyfied right down to the character breakfast. The hotel chains will kick back the necessary percentage and keep the rest. When said guest steps outside the bus will be waiting to take them to the park of their choice. As long as Disney controls the land the guests are 'on property'. Your average guest could care less who manages the hotel just as long as there is a fair share of hidden mickeys to look for.

Take a look at the Swan and Dolphin - that's the resort future.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Your reservoir argument is extremely weak if they aren't actually keeping guests on property, and getting maximum rate of return on each guest.

Why do they "begrudgingly" put up with these problems if they weren't concerned with keeping people on property? That's the point Lockedout, controlling the entire experience is the point. Letting Marriott control the guest experience is idiotic because it leaves money on the table.

Of course airport shuttle aren't going to pay for new hotels. They're another reason for staying on property. Which is the point.

EMH and DME paying for a new hotel? What? The Resort Hold is the single most important factor in all this. Those are just a factors in ensuring that the hold remains strong.

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

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Try the Florida agency that regulates public transit or rides. I don't know what the monorail qualifies as I am guessing it's public transit.

Most states require local jurisdictions (I.e. Reedy Creek) to file operational statistics on transportation. If it's considered a theme park ride there will be more data about operations.

You likely will need to FOIA this information. It's also possible someone has done this. A Google search might turn up an article quoting some data.

Either way good luck.

Typically you would be right...

However, reedy creek is the most autonomous local jurisdiction in the United States.

Only NA reservations have more power and they are a completely unique circumstance.

Wdw is more like the Vatican than anything we know.

There's an excellent book...married to the mouse... That details the establishment and history in Florida.

Wdw is not walt Disney's crowning achievement...it's really Roy's

 

[clsteve]

What doesn't make sense about your argument is the fact that Disney has been focused singularly on efficiency. This efficiency means that they'd be most profitable running the hotels themselves. Unless Disney could make an argument that the 3rd Party was more efficient at running the hotel there's no reason to outsource. Because Disney has one of (if not) the best employee management and supply chain management teams in Orlando they'd also gain from efficiency there as well. Let's think about this for a second on the Hotel Pros side:
1) Innovative technologies give Disney an edge on operations cost savings.
2) Disney has well established supply chain management operations.
3) They have a well established employee management infrastructure.
4) Guest are a captive audience, and buy exclusively from Disney properties.
5) Guests gain loyalty for WDW exclusively.
6) Full Profit

Con
1) Partial Profit
2) Less control over guests
3) Overall less efficient operations
4) Limited loyalty

They're sacrificing profit. It's okay to add on additional employees if the profit grows with it.

Hmmm... obfuscate much?

You speak like a tenured professor of literature trying fill in for the calculus class. I'm really trying hard to fight through the PR - those absolutes you identify in your number list. The ones touting Disney as the best at some things that, quite frankly and objectively and from experience - they're far from even being considered middle of the pack.

I made no argument in the post you responded to. Check it again. I was making an experienced-based observation based on numbers and identifiable trends.

Countering with Pixie Dust absolutes that Disney is the best at *** insert whatever****, depending on which thread you are posting in..... DDL, we need more quantification than that

So, here's your chance, straight from your response: "They're sacrificing profit. It's okay to add on additional employees if the profit grows with it"

I'm having real trouble putting that absolute from you into a real world scenario where profit (a now thing) and payroll/pension liabilities (a now and future thing) can both live, grow, and be measured and managed on a 2 dimensional fiscal YTY reality while also managing long term liability.

Have at it.....

 

[rteetz]

Your reservoir argument is extremely weak if they aren't actually keeping guests on property, and getting maximum rate of return on each guest.

Why do they "begrudgingly" put up with these problems if they weren't concerned with keeping people on property? That's the point Lockedout, controlling the entire experience is the point. Letting Marriott control the guest experience is idiotic because it leaves money on the table.

Of course airport shuttle aren't going to pay for new hotels. They're another reason for staying on property. Which is the point.

EMH and DME paying for a new hotel? What? The Resort Hold is the single most important factor in all this. Those are just a factors in ensuring that the hold remains strong.

If it's so bad why do they keep allowing hotels to pop up on property obviously disney doesn't want their own hotels there for some reason. If Disney didn't want marriot or four seasons they didn't have to let them but they did. Disney doesn't want brand new hotels they only want DVC.

 

[Planogirl]

I wonder if Disney might spin off their own hotels and let someone else manage them? Interesting to think about.

By the way back to the monorails, do those things routinely break down nowadays? Our MK day last week started off with a bang. The express monorail was down and we got to ride the ferry with a huge mob of rather disgruntled people. It didn't come back until the evening either.