My FP+ Park Strategy WILL SAVE ME ALMOST $20,000!!!

[Laketravis]

Wow. I hear ya - I've stayed in some pretty fancy places but that doesn't change the fact that I just can't seem to get over paying so much for a place to sleep. And hospitality is enjoying an economic resurgence right now, for instance this weekend we are headed down to the coast and it's $300+ a night for off season in a decent but not luxury hotel. Three nights with tax and parking is going to be over $1K. To walk on the beach. In the winter. In Texas.

Just between gas and hotel ($1,100) I'd rather fly to Orlando for the weekend ($750 and is actually quicker than driving to the coast) and try to keep the excursion around the same cost (which leaves $350 for three nights lodging). And while WDW is seeing high occupancy among it's limited inventory, I don't think the off-site market is anywhere near that and will continue to provide wonderful deals. Maybe I wouldn't do a condo for those three nights because they normally require a week stay but I can often get something like Caribe Royale for $100 a night. It's the added transportation expense (rental car? Shuttle?) that increases the cost but then Uber was a great deal for us on past visits but the Orlando bureaucracy has been trying to kill them and passed new ordinances forcing them to charge as much as a taxi (why not force taxi's to charge as little as Uber? Answer: Meads) so I'm not sure what effect that will have.

 

[jade1]

I know you're talking about staying at a condo. But let's look at the other extreme. May 10-15, The Grand Floridian costs $428 a night for an outer building garden view. The cheapest "deluxe" I could find is a studio at OKW or SSR for $239 a night. (Both prices with spring discount). For $239 a night you can book the Waldorf Astoria Orlando for the same dates (including resort charge). I've stayed at OKW (it's my home DVC resort), I like OKW, but I'm guessing the Waldorf Astoria is just a little bit nicer. Free transportation to the parks seems to be every 30 minutes to the MK and once an hour to the other resort On a Schedule. So, it doesn't come as often but you when to show up to catch the shuttle. The Four Seasons is $359 a night with a 20% early booking Discount.

Or rent a BCV studio for $160 a night and no tax (assuming $10 point), us older "owners" basically reserve for dues as our purchase has gone way up in resale value so app $75 a night.

Actually did a Bonnet Creek night once-could see TOT in the distance from our room which was cool. The bus came back too early to watch Wishes if I remember-or it was cutting it closer than we wanted so we drove.

Rooms are nicer once inside, but we are used to kitchens and way more space-but mostly just love the Boardwalk resorts area and walk into EPCOT. Will not stay offsite again.

Found a pic, no balconies though, so from inside our room-can see 3 parks:

 

[Cormoran]

I know you're talking about staying at a condo. But let's look at the other extreme. May 10-15, The Grand Floridian costs $428 a night for an outer building garden view. The cheapest "deluxe" I could find is a studio at OKW or SSR for $239 a night. (Both prices with spring discount). For $239 a night you can book the Waldorf Astoria Orlando for the same dates (including resort charge). I've stayed at OKW (it's my home DVC resort), I like OKW, but I'm guessing the Waldorf Astoria is just a little bit nicer. Free transportation to the parks seems to be every 30 minutes to the MK and once an hour to the other resort On a Schedule. So, it doesn't come as often but you when to show up to catch the shuttle. The Four Seasons is $359 a night with a 20% early booking Discount.

This is the part that's truly amazing. The Four Seasons and the Waldorf Astoria blow Disney Deluxes out of the water, as far as service and accommodations, and they're less expensive! I know that people are paying for location at WDW, but Disney has converted a lot of Deluxe rooms to DVC because of lower occupancy rates. I wonder if they'll reduce their rates and improve their service now that Four Seasons has arrived.

 

[Cormoran]

It's the added transportation expense (rental car? Shuttle?) that increases the cost but then Uber was a great deal for us on past visits but the Orlando bureaucracy has been trying to kill them and passed new ordinances forcing them to charge as much as a taxi (why not force taxi's to charge as little as Uber? Answer: Meads) so I'm not sure what effect that will have.

Don't you love how "free enterprise" exists in our country?

 

[jade1]

This is the part that's truly amazing. The Four Seasons and the Waldorf Astoria blow Disney Deluxes out of the water, as far as service and accommodations, and they're less expensive! I know that people are paying for location at WDW, but Disney has converted a lot of Deluxe rooms to DVC because of lower occupancy rates. I wonder if they'll reduce their rates and improve their service now that Four Seasons has arrived.

They blow them out of the water, yet have to charge less.....hmmmm.

But your right-it's location/immersion for us-and obviously the pricing reflects that. Heck even in New York Waldorf is too far away for us from the action, so it simply has zero chance to make our list.

 

[jade1]

I did a little bit of digging through Disney's financials I've found the numbers and some clues to what's going on. Sorry if this includes a lot of numbers.

The 89% occupancy rate is for Fiscal Year 2015 Quarter 1 (FY15Q1). This is compared to 81% occupancy FY14Q1 and 81% for FY13Q1.

FY15Q1: 89% occupancy * 2,591 room nights = 2,306 room nights rented
FY14Q1: 81% occupancy * 2,620 room nights = 2,122 room nights rented
FY13Q1: 81% occupancy * 2,623 room nights = 2,125 room nights rented

Not exactly trending towards an offsite push it appears. Be interesting to see how the trend continues as folks experience the changes. I still think it (FP+) will lock more people onsite than it will push away-esp the first time visitor crowd, but who knows. And again, if it starts to skew the other way-they can add FP+ incentives.

 

[Laketravis]

Not exactly trending towards an offsite push it appears. Be interesting to see how the trend continues as folks experience the changes. I still think it (FP+) will lock more people onsite than it will push away-esp the first time visitor crowd, but who knows. And again, if it starts to skew the other way-they can add FP+ incentives.

Hard to say. An increase from 81% to 89% represents a 9% increase year over year, but it's entirely possible that an increase in people staying off-site was larger than the increase in people staying on-site. Or it wasn't because we don't know what the off-site market saw. Nor do I know how many total off-site rooms there are within Orlando proper.

 

[jade1]

Hard to say. An increase from 81% to 89% represents a 9% increase year over year, but it's entirely possible that an increase in people staying off-site was larger than the increase in people staying on-site. Or it wasn't because we don't know what the off-site market saw. Nor do I know how many total off-site rooms there are within Orlando proper.

Agreed-hence the "it appears" and "who knows", but a 9% drop to 73% would lead me to believe the trend was for offsite, moreso than a 9% increase does anyway.

 

[Laketravis]

A 9% increase in occupancy over 24,000 rooms could be dwarfed by a 6% increase in occupancy across 100,000 off-site hotels and condos.

Without the complete set of numbers, we just don't know.

 

[jade1]

A 9% increase in occupancy over 24,000 rooms could be dwarfed by a 6% increase in occupancy across 100,000 off-site hotels and condos.

Without the complete set of numbers, we just don't know.

Yep, even if WDW hits 100%-offsite could be up much higher. But I'm still staying with a 9% increase in onsite leads me to believe FP+ is not pushing people into offsite stays, but a 9% decrease would-again just IMO.

 

[cakebaker]

A 9% increase in occupancy over 24,000 rooms could be dwarfed by a 6% increase in occupancy across 100,000 off-site hotels and condos.

Without the complete set of numbers, we just don't know.

Sort of like a 8% increase in revenue for Disney would dwarf a 14% increase for Universal, right?

 

[mom2rtk]

Sort of like a 8% increase in revenue for Disney would dwarf a 14% increase for Universal, right?

Or like how an 8% increase in overhead at Disney would dwarf a 14% increase in overhead at Universal?

 

[cakebaker]

Or like how an 8% increase in overhead at Disney would dwarf a 14% increase in overhead at Universal?

Yup, it applies to everything - which was my point.

 

[Laketravis]

I must have missed something. What does Universal have to do with it?

 

[cakebaker]

I was just reminded of a discussion I was in the other day where I was supposed to be impressed that Universal had a bigger percentage increase in profit than Disney- and at that time, it didn't seem to matter that while the percentage was less, the numbers were greater by far for Disney. So I was just wondering if it worked for this as well- that it doesn't matter that off sites could've increased a great deal more in number if they lost the percentage race.

 

[Cormoran]

I was just reminded of a discussion I was in the other day where I was supposed to be impressed that Universal had a bigger percentage increase in profit than Disney- and at that time, it didn't seem to matter that while the percentage was less, the numbers were greater by far for Disney. So I was just wondering if it worked for this as well- that it doesn't matter that off sites could've increased a great deal more in number if they lost the percentage race.

Even though Universal is small potatoes in comparison to WDW, there are guests who are spending less time at WDW in favor of visiting Universal. Instead of spending full days at Epcot, DHS, and AK they are cutting back or skipping parks altogether. I'm doing this on my next vacation. The only park that everyone agrees is a full day park is MK and most want to devote more than one day to it. I know you dislike Universal, but I think we can both agree that anything Universal does to draw guest away from WDW is a bonus. Because, I think it will prompt Disney to improve both their entertainment and attractions.

 

[cakebaker]

Even though Universal is small potatoes in comparison to WDW, there are guests who are spending less time at WDW in favor of visiting Universal. Instead of spending full days at Epcot, DHS, and AK they are cutting back or skipping parks altogether. I'm doing this on my next vacation. The only park that everyone agrees is a full day park is MK and most want to devote more than one day to it. I know you dislike Universal, but I think we can both agree that anything Universal does to draw guest away from WDW is a bonus. Because, I think it will prompt Disney to improve both their entertainment and attractions.

I started to say I agree with most of this, but actually, I don't.

I certainly don't agree the only park that is a full day is the MK and those who say AK or Epcot are half days are ones who just aren't interested in experiencing everything that's there. It's certainly true of me with HS. It's a half day park for me at best- but that's because I'm not interested in much that it offers. And that's fine- there's plenty in the other parks that does.

The thing I disagree most with is the idea that Universal can teach Disney something. There's not a chance WDW is chasing Universal's tail. The thought actually made me lol.

Yes, some people spend less time at WDW than Universal- that's always been true, probably always will be. If you're saying it's because of FP+ I absolutely disagree. Don't let the bubble that is the DIS form your opinion on what does and does not happen. I think FP+ didn't change the playing field, you do. Neither of us knows. But for me personally- the more people at Universal rather than Disney, the better off I am. I don't think enough of it's happening though that I can tell a difference when visiting. I'm guessing come June the parks will be packed just like always.

 

[Cormoran]

Even though Universal is small potatoes in comparison to WDW, there are guests who are spending less time at WDW in favor of visiting Universal. Instead of spending full days at Epcot, DHS, and AK they are cutting back or skipping parks altogether. I'm doing this on my next vacation. The only park that everyone agrees is a full day park is MK and most want to devote more than one day to it. I know you dislike Universal, but I think we can both agree that anything Universal does to draw guest away from WDW is a bonus. Because, I think it will prompt Disney to improve both their entertainment and attractions.

I started to say I agree with most of this, but actually, I don't.

I certainly don't agree the only park that is a full day is the MK and those who say AK or Epcot are half days are ones who just aren't interested in experiencing everything that's there. It's certainly true of me with HS. It's a half day park for me at best- but that's because I'm not interested in much that it offers. And that's fine- there's plenty in the other parks that does.

The thing I disagree most with is the idea that Universal can teach Disney something. There's not a chance WDW is chasing Universal's tail. The thought actually made me lol.

Yes, some people spend less time at WDW than Universal- that's always been true, probably always will be. If you're saying it's because of FP+ I absolutely disagree. Don't let the bubble that is the DIS form your opinion on what does and does not happen. I think FP+ didn't change the playing field, you do. Neither of us knows. But for me personally- the more people at Universal rather than Disney, the better off I am. I don't think enough of it's happening though that I can tell a difference when visiting. I'm guessing come June the parks will be packed just like always.

I'm sorry Cakebaker, but you are putting words in my mouth. If you look at what I posted, I never said that WDW was chasing Universal's tail. I also didn't say that Universal could teach WDW something. That's all you. Also, just because you find AK and Epcot to be all day parks doesn't mean others do, some may find that DHS is an all day park for them.
All I did say was that Universal was drawing guests away from WDW, and they we might benefit from this.

 

[johde]

I started to say I agree with most of this, but actually, I don't.

I certainly don't agree the only park that is a full day is the MK and those who say AK or Epcot are half days are ones who just aren't interested in experiencing everything that's there. It's certainly true of me with HS. It's a half day park for me at best- but that's because I'm not interested in much that it offers. And that's fine- there's plenty in the other parks that does.

The thing I disagree most with is the idea that Universal can teach Disney something. There's not a chance WDW is chasing Universal's tail. The thought actually made me lol.

Yes, some people spend less time at WDW than Universal- that's always been true, probably always will be. If you're saying it's because of FP+ I absolutely disagree. Don't let the bubble that is the DIS form your opinion on what does and does not happen. I think FP+ didn't change the playing field, you do. Neither of us knows. But for me personally- the more people at Universal rather than Disney, the better off I am. I don't think enough of it's happening though that I can tell a difference when visiting. I'm guessing come June the parks will be packed just like always.

You may not notice it at Disney. But, I definitely notice it at Universal. In 2007-2008, Universal was a virtual ghost town. The percentage increase in attendance at Universal between then at now is staggering. Now, I'm the first one to admit, this growth is also a byproduct of how much Universal declined in the dark years preceding it. To break what was looking like a potential death spiral of attendance, Universal took a page out of the Disney playbook of old that many of us remember combined with a new owner in Comcast that's willing to spend some money, and started on an expansion and revitalization campaign in the parks that continues to this day where there is "something new" all the time and over 1/2 of them are something major. You had Hollywood Rip Ride Rocket in 2009, Hogmead and Forbidden Journey in 2010, Despicable me and Springfield retheming in 2012, Transformers in 2013, Diagon Alley in 2014. At Disney we've had New Fantasyland Stage 1 (Be Our Guest/Little Mermaid) , New Fantasyland Stage 2 (7dmt). Sum of all Thrills, Frozen Celebration at DHS, and a bunch of minor enhancement (new home for Lion King, SOTM, Agent P, etc) during that same time frame.

Universal learned a lot from Disney and it shows. Most of the new theming in the parks meets or surpasses the level of theming Disney is doing and it shows. To think Disney can't turn around and learn something from Universal is naive. I think part of the reason there hasn't been a formal announcement of what going on with DHS (Star Wars Land and Pixar Place Rumor) and Epcot (Soarin' Expansion and New movie) is they are taking a page from the Universal playbook and keeping expansion news "closer to the vest" especially as far the public is concerned. The agreement for Avatarland was made public in 2011 and probably won't open until 2016 or 2017. By contrast, Diagon Alley was in the works from the minute Hogsmead opened in 2010 but wasn't made public until well after Jaws had closed and construction had started. Universal still hasn't announced what the construction is that going on between Jurassic Park and Dudley Do Right (It's Kong but the general public hype machine hasn't started yet just leaks from insiders).

Just think, before the Ipod, Apple was a washed up computer company. Today it has the largest market cap of any company in the U.S. Do you think Microsoft could have learned something from Apple?

 

[cakebaker]

Also, just because you find AK and Epcot to be all day parks doesn't mean others do, some may find that DHS is an all day park for them.

Yes I know- that's pretty much what I said. The point being, that just because you read posts on the Dis declaring AK a half day park doesn't mean it really is for you. I've read some posts where people don't visit AK at all because they have zoos at home- of course it's not an all day park for them because they aren't interested. But any of the parks can be full day, half day or no day depending on your interests and none of us know how many guests feel which way.