NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[jdg345]

True but it's equally irresponsible to blindly ask all members to subsidize resort services without giving due consideration to the overall cost and usage patterns.

Oh, I would agree. But right now I'm not thinking DVC has any sort of track record that would support they perform due dilligence before making these decisions. For some reason, I doubt they started here with the valet perk.

Earlier in this thread I did some back-of-the-napkin math and figured that subsidized valet could easily increase the BWV operating budget by an additional 5%--on top of the 2-4% annual increases already showing up in 2010 dues. I'm hard-pressed to label that a responsible decision when free self parking remains available at each of the resorts.

I don't necessarily think it would be an additional 5%; but then what would be too much? 3%? 2%? 1%? It's a lot to ask anyone to spend more for something they're not using. Of course, isn't that what we seem to have today? Dues have pretty consistently gone up, and the perks and quality have not trended in the same direction.

 

[needtogomore]

it would have to be an across the board thing, not just for those resorts that have valet services. It would have to include OKW, SSR, etc. QUOTE]

this is not true each resort charges dues for its own facilities not others.

 

[jdg345]

it would have to be an across the board thing, not just for those resorts that have valet services. It would have to include OKW, SSR, etc. QUOTE]

this is not true each resort charges dues for its own facilities not others.

I'm saying if they were to make a paid-for DVC perk, it would have to be paid for by all the membership, not just those resorts that have valet since all members could take advantage of the perk regardless of where they were staying. I could stay at SSR and Valet at BWV for lunch, for example. They could easily pool it and break it out by resort as they do this already for other services.

That said, I'm not suggesting that they would, nor do I think an across the board increase in dues is/was the answer to this debacle.

 

[tjkraz]

Oh, I would agree. But right now I'm not thinking DVC has any sort of track record that would support they perform due dilligence before making these decisions. For some reason, I doubt they started here with the valet perk.

Undoubtedly they have information on usage patterns so they know how much it was being used by members and they know what they dues impact would have been

As I've said before, I'm hard-pressed to buy into the idea that DVC made a reckless decision here. DVC would have had every right to add the cost to member dues and obligate us to paying millions worth of annual valet parking fees. The fact that they did not go this route will cost Disney greatly, and suggests that usage data simply did not support subsidizing the resorts service.

Of course, isn't that what we seem to have today? Dues have pretty consistently gone up, and the perks and quality have not trended in the same direction.

On that point I wholeheartely disagree.

We can spend all day pointing to service reductions at Disney parks and restaurants, but I think Disney has done quite well with the resorts. Admittedly this is in large part due to our dues funding the upkeep of the properties.

Dues go toward things like CM salaries and benefits, insurance premiums and transportation costs which always seem to be on the rise. Dues cover room refurbishments and most locations have witnessed nice upgrades in the quality of accommodations in recent years (sofabeds, mattresses, sheets, TVs, patio furniture, iHome clock radios, DVD players, etc.)

In recent years OKW added the pool slide. All of the resorts have increased their activity programs with poolside parties, games, scavenger hunts, craft classes, etc. Most resorts host movies in a public area several times per week.

As for member perks, they haven't changed noticeably in the 6+ years we have been members. We gained no-cost Internet and the AP discount and lost the LOS pass discount and now valet parking. Aside from that, the volume of shopping and dining discounts is largely unchanged (although the exact locations are tweaked periodically.)

Yes dues have increased but I don't see any signs that Disney is simply collecting more and providing less at the resorts.

 

[crisi]

I'm saying if they were to make a paid-for DVC perk, it would have to be paid for by all the membership, not just those resorts that have valet since all members could take advantage of the perk regardless of where they were staying. I could stay at SSR and Valet at BWV for lunch, for example. They could easily pool it and break it out by resort as they do this already for other services.

That said, I'm not suggesting that they would, nor do I think an across the board increase in dues is/was the answer to this debacle.

I have my doubts that legally they could do this.

 

[jdg345]

Undoubtedly they have information on usage patterns so they know how much it was being used by members and they know what they dues impact would have been

I think that this came out of failed contract negotiations. I don't think they necessarily planned to dump the perk, but were rather strong-armed into making that decision.

As I've said before, I'm hard-pressed to buy into the idea that DVC made a reckless decision here. DVC would have had every right to add the cost to member dues and obligate us to paying millions worth of annual valet parking fees. The fact that they did not go this route will cost Disney greatly, and suggests that usage data simply did not support subsidizing the resorts service.

Just because it worked out doesn't mean it wasn't reckless.

On that point I wholeheartely disagree.

We can certainly agree to disagree; it all comes down to one's perspective of value.

We can spend all day pointing to service reductions at Disney parks and restaurants, but I think Disney has done quite well with the resorts. Admittedly this is in large part due to our dues funding the upkeep of the properties.

Dues go toward things like CM salaries and benefits, insurance premiums and transportation costs which always seem to be on the rise. Dues cover room refurbishments and most locations have witnessed nice upgrades in the quality of accommodations in recent years (sofabeds, mattresses, sheets, TVs, patio furniture, iHome clock radios, DVD players, etc.)

Well, I don't watch TV, rarely sit on the patio, and never use the iHome clock radios or DVD players. Why should I have to pay for all that. Nevermind the furniture in good condition that had to be swapped out to make room for these new things. Leave the old stuff, and my dues alone.

In recent years OKW added the pool slide. All of the resorts have increased their activity programs with poolside parties, games, scavenger hunts, craft classes, etc. Most resorts host movies in a public area several times per week.

The pool slide was an interesting debate too, was it not?

And most of the games/crafts/etc incorporate their own fees and/or are paid for by our dues. Movie hosting is nice, but I'm sure they make a good penny on concessions as well.

As for member perks, they haven't changed noticeably in the 6+ years we have been members. We gained no-cost Internet and the AP discount and lost the LOS pass discount and now valet parking. Aside from that, the volume of shopping and dining discounts is largely unchanged (although the exact locations are tweaked periodically.)

Yes dues have increased but I don't see any signs that Disney is simply collecting more and providing less at the resorts.

Economies of scale ...

 

[Chuck S]

Members pay for pool hopping indirectly; pool upkeep is higher if you allow others who are not staying at your resort to use those facilities. Reservation services while necessary, don't have to be online. Many are calling for online services yet it is possible that a majority do not (or would not) use the online portal for reservations or account management. We all somehow subsidize the website; but, do we all use it? I also don't know that Internet is that low of a cost, there are many monthly recurring cost centers to deal with, not just for the service but for additional staff, equipment maintenance services, etc.

Tell me, how do members at AKV, BLT and BCV pay for pool hopping under your scenario, as those resorts do not allow pool hopping? And how do members pay for pool hopping at non-DVC resorts?

For reservations, initial internet interactive development is expensive, yes. But over time, cheap to maintain, as opposed to 7 day per week staffed call centers. Likely the cost savings in call center staff, and perhaps fewer call center operating hours, will offset the internet reservation development costs in the long run. Surely you aren't comparing the cost of providing Internet at the resorts to valet services, given that valet requires 8 full time and 2 part time employees, for 24/7 service at 168 operating hours per week.

Dunno ... but I think DVC should have at least negotiated some sort of discount for DVC members instead of going from FREE to Rack Rate. Maybe they didn't try, or maybe the valet company wanted nothing to do with the discussions. We may never know.

But the point is, who should pay for it now? And what would stop the contractor from offering a discount, if they felt it was warranted/needed for traffic volume, just as a restaurant offers "Early Bird" or "Senior" discounts to boost traffic in slower parts of the day.

If they were going to do it, it would have to be an across the board thing, not just for those resorts that have valet services. It would have to include OKW, SSR, etc. And to answer your question, no, it wouldn't be fair. Neither is the alternative I've listed. Such is life, no? Is it fair that I subsidize the Internet services yet don't even own a computer?

It would not be legal for OKW and SSR to assume part of the valet operating costs at other resorts. Dues are based upon the actual operating costs of each resort...that is part of the function of a deeded interest.

What did they do in the past? It's been a long time since I've seen the valet lots full.

Irrelevant, as now that dues WOULD be paying for it, and there is a reasonable expectation of it always being available for the members staying at the resort. When it was a non-dues subsidized perk, they could simply say the lot was full, no valet available. With a dues subsidy, that may not be legal. With Internet, it IS available to any member staying on points all the time.

 

[jdg345]

Tell me, how do members at AKV, BLT and BCV pay for pool hopping uder your scenario, as those resorts do not allow pool hopping? ANd how do members pay for pool hopping at non-DVC resorts?

As I said, indirectly, via higher maintenance and upkeep.

For reservations, initial internet interactive development is expensive, yes. But over time, cheap to maintain, as opposed to 7 day per week staffed call centers. Likely the cost savings in call center staff, and perhaps fewer call center operating hours, will offset the internet reservation development costs in the long run.

You still have to keep most of that staff as there are no guarantees the bulk of the membership can or will use the online booking components. The initial development is a huge expensive, and I disagree that it is 'cheap' to maintain. Anything custom is going to require staff to keep it going, not to mention additional hardware requirements, ongoing maintenance and support, etc.

Surely you aren't comparing the cost of providing Internet at the resorts to valet services, given that valet requires 8 full time and 2 part time employees, for 24/7 service at 168 operatying hours per week.

What could it cost per month? The bandwidth and infrastructure needs to be available regardless of whether or not it is being used, just as the valets need to stand there regardless of whether or not there is a car to be parked. Yes, you have more employees on staff for valet, but their hourly rates would be much lower than those of the staff required to maintain the internet components. Do the valets even make minimum wage with this vendor? Several companies I've dealt with in the past (albeit years ago) paid less than min because it was a tipped position.

But the point is, who should pay for it now? And what would stop the contractor from offering a discount, if they felt it was warrented/needed for traffic volume, just as a restaurant offers "Early Bird" or "Senior" discounts to boost traffic in slower parts of the day.

Why, someone else should pay for it now, of course.

It would not be legal for OKW and SSR to assume part of the valet operating costs at other resorts. Dues are based upon the actual operating costs of each resort...that is part of the function of a deeded interest.

Ahhh ... but this does not need to be part of operational budgets. It depends on how the contracts between the parties are written. For that matter, it could be made part of the Transportation component as that is a general pool that is broken up by point allocation at the resorts.

Regardless, I was able to use the perk in the past to valet at non-DVC resorts. Who paid for that?

Irrelevant, as now that dues WOULD be paying for it, and there is a reasonable expectation of it always being available for the members staying at the resort. When it was a non-dues subsidized perk, they could simply say the lot was full, no valet available. With a dues subsidy, that may not be legal. With Internet, it IS available to any member staying on points all the time.

Actually, that's not true. Internet services have been unavailable quite a few times at The World. My last visit, in fact, it was down for 3 of the 7 days I was here.

 

[tjkraz]

I think that this came out of failed contract negotiations. I don't think they necessarily planned to dump the perk, but were rather strong-armed into making that decision.

That may well be true but it wouldn't preclude DVC charging members for subsidized parking. I doubt that either Parks & Resorts or the valet company would have refused the revenue.

Just because it worked out doesn't mean it wasn't reckless.

Just because some members don't like the decision doesn't mean it was improper.

We can certainly agree to disagree; it all comes down to one's perspective of value.

Well, I don't watch TV, rarely sit on the patio, and never use the iHome clock radios or DVD players. Why should I have to pay for all that. Nevermind the furniture in good condition that had to be swapped out to make room for these new things. Leave the old stuff, and my dues alone.

The pool slide was an interesting debate too, was it not?

You stated that dues have steadily increased "while perks and quality have not trended in the same direction." I simply illustrated some of the many areas which have driven the dues increases.

"Perspective of value" is irrelevant when discussing actual dollars and cents. The higher-quality furnishings and services have higher acquisition costs. Whether you like the decisions made or not is immaterial--the money was spent and it's pretty easy to point to areas which have improved.

Additionally we all know that things like wages, employee benefits, property taxes, transportation (gasoline), property insurance are prone to regular increases regardless of what the economy is doing. Most Disney CMs received raises a couple months ago per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement.

And most of the games/crafts/etc incorporate their own fees. Movie hosting is nice, but I'm sure they make a good penny on concessions as well.

Some activities have minimal fees. Most do not. The activity schedule from our most recent trip shows 29 of 35 weekly activities as complimentary.

 

[jdg345]

That may well be true but it wouldn't preclude DVC charging members for subsidized parking. I doubt that either Parks & Resorts or the valet company would have refused the revenue.

I think that was part of the problem.

Just because some members don't like the decision doesn't mean it was improper.

Given the option to raise dues 5% or drop the perk, I think most everyone would agree DVC made the proper decision. How we got to that point and why it came to those two options is a whole different matter.

You stated that dues have steadily increased "while perks and quality have not trended in the same direction." I simply illustrated some of the many areas which have driven the dues increases.

But these are areas that may or may not matter to the membership as a whole.

"Perspective of value" is irrelevant when discussing actual dollars and cents. The higher-quality furnishings and services have higher acquisition costs. Whether you like the decisions made or not is immaterial--the money was spent and it's pretty easy to point to areas which have improved.

Well then, if DVC decided to raise dues to provide upgraded valet parking services, then it would be pretty easy to point to that area of improvement where the money was spent, no? While those furnishings and services have higher acquisition costs, couldn't it be considered by some as reckless that their dues are going up, especially in a poor economy, when they really wanted nothing to do with those upgrades?

Additionally we all know that things like wages, employee benefits, property taxes, transportation (gasoline), property insurance are prone to regular increases regardless of what the economy is doing. Most Disney CMs received raises a couple months ago per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement.

And not all of those items fall into the same dues categories. And I completely disagree that wages and benefits are prone to increase regardless of the economic state. Many companies are not giving raises, period, and are cutting back benefits such as healthcare, PTO, corporate events, etc.

Some activities have minimal fees. Most do not. The activity schedule from our most recent trip shows 29 of 35 weekly activities as complimentary.

If "Complimentary", then it was likely paid for by our dues. That doesn't really work out to a 'Free Perk', does it?

 

[tjkraz]

I think that was part of the problem.

Given the option to raise dues 5% or drop the perk, I think most everyone would agree DVC made the proper decision. How we got to that point and why it came to those two options is a whole different matter.

...a matter on which we will never have any real clarity.

But these are areas that may or may not matter to the membership as a whole.

Well then, if DVC decided to raise dues to provide upgraded valet parking services, then it would be pretty easy to point to that area of improvement where the money was spent, no? While those furnishings and services have higher acquisition costs, couldn't it be considered by some as reckless that their dues are going up, especially in a poor economy, when they really wanted nothing to do with those upgrades?

I don't disagree with any of this. The fact is we signed away all of our rights from the very start. DVC gets to make these decisions for us...we knew that from Day One.

Again, I'm not commenting on whether the decisions were entirely proper or how membership feels as a whole. My only perspective here is that dues are rising because DVC is putting more money into the resorts.

And not all of those items fall into the same dues categories. And I completely disagree that wages and benefits are prone to increase regardless of the economic state. Many companies are not giving raises, period, and are cutting back benefits such as healthcare, PTO, corporate events, etc.

I don't recall us discussing individual budget categories.

As to the salary issue, to quote myself: Most Disney CMs received raises a couple months ago per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement. Many salaries WILL cost more in 2010 than they did in 2009 or prior regardless of what the economy is doing.

If "Complimentary", then it was likely paid for by our dues. That doesn't really work out to a 'Free Perk', does it?

I never said that it wasn't paid by dues. These are more examples of resort services which have expanded in the last 3-4 years.

 

[jdg345]

 

[jdg345]

I never said that it wasn't paid by dues. These are more examples of resort services which have expanded in the last 3-4 years.

And now we get the photopass discount too.

Of course, that $50 would cover 4 days of Valet Parking.

 

[MELSMICE]

jdg345 - I was going to copy & paste of bunch of your posts, but it's best to just say that I completely agree with everything you've written.

I especially agree that indirectly all members pay for pool hopping with the additional maintenance that is needed when members do pool hop.

 

[Deb & Bill]

jdg345 - I was going to copy & paste of bunch of your posts, but it's best to just say that I completely agree with everything you've written.

I especially agree that indirectly all members pay for pool hopping with the additional maintenance that is needed when members do pool hop.

I'd bet there would be greater maintenance costs for all the illegal pool hoppers than for the legal pool hoppers. And they don't even pay dues.

Or from the guests who decide to use pool towels instead of paying for additional towels packs because they want a clean towel every time they use one. And those could be both dues payers and non-payers.

 

[MELSMICE]

I'd bet there would be greater maintenance costs for all the illegal pool hoppers than for the legal pool hoppers. And they don't even pay dues.

Or from the guests who decide to use pool towels instead of paying for additional towels packs because they want a clean towel every time they use one. And those could be both dues payers and non-payers.

Yes, but it is still an additional expense. The other expenses are not going away - people will continue to pool hop & guests will continue to use an abundance of towels.

Legit pool hoppers are using a service at another resort that could use at the resort they are currently a guest at.

 

[Chuck S]

Yes, but it is still an additional expense. The other expenses are not going away - people will continue to pool hop & guests will continue to use an abundance of towels.

Legit pool hoppers are using a service at another resort that could use at the resort they are currently a guest at.

But wouldn't that balance out? If DVCers hop to another DVC resort, couldn't you also assume that a similar number of DVCers would hop to their other resort? Most of the hopping occurs from DVC resorts to non-DVC resorts...wouldn't that save slightly on maintenance?

And again, there is no additonal costs at all at BLT, AKV and BCV as no pool hopping is allowed to those resorts. It is also dooubtful that many hop from those resorts to other DVC resorts.

 

[crisi]

And I really suspect that it is inevitable that pool hopping disappears entirely - and in the near future. I'll lay odds that its the next 100 page thread on the DIS DVC board. Currently both BWV and VWL guests are getting a raw deal, and the Poly pool as well. Close to the parks, with nearby pools that you can't hop to. Neither resort has adequate pool chairs for the resort itself. And we spend enough time griping about hoppers on this board that I have to believe its a common theme in Disney customer service complaints. ETA: There are now enough DVC members as well that hopping for a midday pool break from the MK to the Poly pool threatens to stress the pool - or from Epcot to the BW pool. Back when it was OKW, BWV and VWL and 100,000 members, on any given day DVC hoppers would be a drop. Now it has the potential to be more than a trickle.

 

[Deb & Bill]

And I really suspect that it is inevitable that pool hopping disappears entirely - and in the near future. I'll lay odds that its the next 100 page thread on the DIS DVC board. Currently both BWV and VWL guests are getting a raw deal, and the Poly pool as well. Close to the parks, with nearby pools that you can't hop to. Neither resort has adequate pool chairs for the resort itself. And we spend enough time griping about hoppers on this board that I have to believe its a common theme in Disney customer service complaints. ETA: There are now enough DVC members as well that hopping for a midday pool break from the MK to the Poly pool threatens to stress the pool - or from Epcot to the BW pool. Back when it was OKW, BWV and VWL and 100,000 members, on any given day DVC hoppers would be a drop. Now it has the potential to be more than a trickle.

I'd venture a guess to say you are probably correct. Pool hopping will ultimately go away in the near future.

 

[jdg345]

I'd bet there would be greater maintenance costs for all the illegal pool hoppers than for the legal pool hoppers. And they don't even pay dues.

Or from the guests who decide to use pool towels instead of paying for additional towels packs because they want a clean towel every time they use one. And those could be both dues payers and non-payers.

I completely agree with his ... let's not forget those that stay at other resorts and then take up the parking spots at OKW and SSR to use the feature pools. This is especially an issue at SSR. Many times I have found myself not being able to park at my villa because someone drove over and went to Olivia's or to the pool -- from another resort !!