Yes, but the point isn't about the response given by Disney to the monorail situation. Its about the number of people who write to Disney and complain, so they know how people feel and hopefully it can initiate change.
I thought this might me helpful to people who aren't reading an over 80 page thread, in detail. If you already had this information , I apologize. But in that case, why would you even bother to respond? I don't get why there is a need for people to be rude and indignent to fellow posters on these boards, when all I was trying to do was help and provide contact information that people may not have.
Well said! A lot like writing a Congressman. They don't read each response, but can get a feel for the magnitude based on the number of people who write to support or oppose an issue.
No worries, I don't think you're whining at all. Just keeping our discussion lively.
I like hearing both sides because it forces me to think through my own thoughts more clearly. Nothing wrong with that. That's what I enjoy about discussion boards.
And I get the whole "escaping from my own reality" idea, I feel very similar when I'm at Disney too. But for me, it's hard to keep that idea going when I see things that make me feel like Disney is nickeling and diming me.
But I know there are people here who do not feel the same way I do and that's fine. There are also lots of first timers who will got to Disney and not see any of things some of us here see. That's fine too.
Vacation value vs. cost is such a subjective thing. For us, when we go on vacation, we go big. Mostly because we hardly ever take vacations so when we do, we like a certain style I guess you could say. But sure, we *could* still go to Disney, stay at a value suite, split meals and so on but that's not what we like nor is it worth it to us.
Just wanted to comment with a thanks for keeping it positive.
With repect to the bolded, that is too true. Some think any trip to Disney, even if you stay at a relative's house nearby & pack your own meals is too expensive. Others think that staying concierge at a MK view room on the Deluxe Dining Plan is a great value.
I hate to pick apart your list too, but some of the things you mentioned are not free as it is passed along as price increases. Free dining isn't free because room rates are at rack rates, room discounts are usually a better deal. EMHs are a perk for staying on property and that cost is added into the room cost too as is DME, so everyone is paying for these perks if they use them or not. New attractions are also paid for by ticket increases and sponsorship from corporations. Rehabs have to be done and are not perks by any means. While there have been some character meals and shows added, there have also been some discontinued--ie Garden Grill, Olivia's Cafe, Tarzan Rocks, Pocohontas.
I agree with doing away with the
DDP, it has really effected the food quality. We too use Disney as our escape from the everyday, but it is costing more and more and I am getting less and less
.
I know that nothing is free - it's all built-in. I just use the word free to designate the discount received. And for many, free dining is the only way they can afford to go to Disney. They stay at a value resort during the off-season when the rack rates are the least expensive. This OFTEN makes the free-dining a much larger discount than any room-ony discount code. I would even call it a deep discount for many unless perhaps you're staying at a premium view Deluxe. So, yes, it is a perk that many have come to not only expect, but they practically demand it. I've seen some fairly heated threads on this issue.
What's interesting is that you say DME & Free dining is the same as a discount code. Assume that a family of 4 was paying on average $60 per night pre-2007 for a room at the All-Stars with a discount code & you paid $120 for transfers (I can't remember how much they were as we never used them). Plus, you paid OOP for food which for say, 5 nights, is approximately $100 per day. Before park tickets, that's $920 for 5-nights ($60 per night for hotel x 5 nights + $100 per day for food x 5 + $120 transfers).
Now, assume they offer free dining & free DME to you, but you have to pay the rack rate of $95 per night (actually weekdays are less than $95, but for ease of math I will assume that every day is $95 per night). As a family of four, you opt to travel during free dining. Excluding tickets, that's $475 or nearly 1/2 off the cost of your previously "discounted" package you had prior to 2007. Obviously, it would be even a deeper discount from the rack rate.
And believe it or not, some guests do pay rack rate.
If you stop by the free dining threads, I think you might see that these represent such deep discounts for some families that it is the only way they can afford to visit WDW. And then on top of it, they don't have to pay extra for the trip to/from the airport. So I will continue to stand by my assertion that these discount promotions are a perk to guests that wasn't there before and is a positive for many families who couldn't otherwise afford to go to Disney.
Yes, attractions are paid for through guest revenue. But in a recession (or otherwise), Disney doesn't "have" to add new attractions. (You could argue they have to in order to compete and draw repeat guests and I agree). However, they could simply raise prices and not do anything. Instead of major refurbs, they could just slap some paint on an attraction and call it good. There was no requirement that Disney had to add new interactive queues or any stipulation that they had to add headline attractions such as Soarin', EE, Star Tours 2.0, TSMM and the Fantasyland expansion. They could have simply added another lame Aladdin's Magic Carpet Ride attraction and called it good. They didn't have to add MMY. They don't have to have nightly fireworks. And when was the last time Disney had a corporate sponsor for a major attraction? 1998 for TT? Soarin - nope. TSMM - nope. EE - nope. Star Tours - nope. Fantasyland - nope. I actually think they've lost some sponsors over the years (Nestle, ATT, etc.) but they keep adding attractions anyway.
I understand that you're just trying to point out that since I posted that most of the negatives can have a positive, all the positives can be spun negatively as well.
To me, you answered your own question of value vs cost when you said that Disney is costing you more and you're getting less and less. If that's how you feel, I don't expect to change that. I see that the positives have far outweighed the negatives. I understand not everyone agrees, but I just want to add balance to the conversation to show that not everyone feels that Disney is going downhill.
.
.
I'm off to catch up on this and other threads!
