I do believe it was a minority of the membership, and certainly is a minority of the guests staying at DVC at any given time, but it really doesn't matter in this situation. None of the other areas you bring up make no sense, the only one that is at all comparable is the internet and as I've previously stated, it is still a LOT different in that there IS an economy of scale, more use it and it's cheap; plus it is being subsidized by others. It really is as simple as whether those that use it is going to pay for the things they chose to use or are they going to ask others to pay for them. Someone has to pay and there is NO credible reason to pass this charge on to others (no economy of scale, high cost item, easy to target who to charge, etc). Now hopefully DVC can revisit the issue and negotiate a cheaper fee for this situation but the way things are going it would appear that eliminating valet parking is more likely than going the other way.If the Valet lots continue to be more empty than full, than I think it would be safe to say that a majority of the Valet traffic was due to DVC membership. That said, this group could very well be a minority of the overall DVC membership while being a majority of the valet traffic.
I would also say that many members feel "if I don't use it, I shouldn't pay for it". This extends to: DBD, Walking, Internet in Villa, Pool hopping, transportation, dvcmember online, online checkin, online reservations [eventually], etc. The problem is that with any group, you cannot make everyone happy and will always have case where you need to support something you don't necessarily use yourself. Of course, people's vacation habits change, so just because someone doesn't use a perk now doesn't mean they won't want to use it in the future.
Doubtful unless he feels that valet parking is NOT a reasonable item to spread between all members and that the other items I quoted ARE not only reasonable to average to everyone but unreasonable to do otherwise. The only questionable one is the internet but given the specifics, it is one that is BEST averaged to everyone. It's actually even more of a division that has been discussed as ONLY the members at those resorts would be paying for it. I don't think there's any way to spread any such costs among the other members. Some of the items that were listed have little or no cost and several are not avoidable without changing the rules for everyone. Some likely will be curtailed at some point including that I expect changes in reservations to be considered a cancelation and rebooking at some point.Sooo....then you're in complete agreement with jdg345 ?
If, big if, anything positive happens I suspect a minor discount (maybe $2/day) is about the best one can hope for. The other option, and I think a far less likely one, is to negotiate a package deal for a single contract price as has been suggested on this thread they should have done rather than the change that did occur. If there is a large enough discount then it may flip over to being reasonable to spread to the membership as a whole. The contractor may be willing to do that or they may not. I'm guessing they knew up front the numbers that were DVC and those that were not and made their decisions accordingly. I'm assuming they made the decision they did tied to a smaller group of employees, likely with more part time people compared to before. I think the two most likely options are it'll stay pretty much like it is or the valet parking as we know it will be eliminated at some of all of the resorts, esp the DVC resorts. I'm sure some will say there's no way they can do without valet parking but I don't agree. They'll have to make some provisions for parking for HC but I don't see that as an unworkable impediment to eliminating valet parking though I'm sure some will disagree. I suspect it's likely Disney will be faced with the option of elimination or taking it back in house at some point, tough choice.My guess is that if they do anything positive, it will be a negotiated discount. If the traffic has fallen off as antecdotal evidence suggests, then DVC members could have been responsible for a large percentage of overall valet customers. If this is the case, then the valet company may opt for getting some of something versus all of nothing.
I don't know that they'll be able to eliminate valet parking as a whole; but I suppose this is certainly an option if the traffic falls off that drastically. In the end, I think Disney will still want to provide this service though and I doubt they've ever want to take it back in house.
My guess is that if they do anything positive, it will be a negotiated discount. If the traffic has fallen off as antecdotal evidence suggests, then DVC members could have been responsible for a large percentage of overall valet customers. If this is the case, then the valet company may opt for getting some of something versus all of nothing.
I don't know that they'll be able to eliminate valet parking as a whole; but I suppose this is certainly an option if the traffic falls off that drastically. In the end, I think Disney will still want to provide this service though and I doubt they've ever want to take it back in house.
What's sad, IMO, is that it might possibly cost the members only a few dollars more in their dues.
With both the new and old set up a given member must decide whether to use it or not. IMO, 5-10¢ a point (my guess) is a lot to pass on to those that did not use it. Plus it's likely that ONLY the resorts that actually have valet would have been paying, not all members which likely pushes the 10¢ a point level or more. While there are items where the costs are shared by all that not everyone uses, there is NOT another item that is comparable to the valet parking that I can think of. The internet option is by far the closest and there is still a major difference there. Ultimately to me the question is why would anyone think others should pay their way. IF there are items that one feels they do not use and the costs should not be shared by all, make that case to DVC. We've already seen other items (towels, shampoo, etc) go pay to play for extras. There certainly are other areas that could do so including multiple reservation fees, cancelation fees, banking/borrowing fees, etc. The question isn't whether to draw the line but WHERE to draw the line. I wouldn't vote to have the costs shared unless there were a significant economy of scale by doing so and/or there were significant costs in enforcement and my info suggests neither is true in this situation, at least at the present time.
There are perks that are win/win but they all cost nothing or almost nothing like dining and AP discounts. Unfortunately this particular perk is AT BEST win/lose with the majority subsidizing the minority if the costs were rolled into dues. The only question was whether those that used it were going to "lose" by having to pay the costs of whether some that didn't use it were going to lose by subsidizing those that did use it. The only way to make it win/win would be to negotiate a price that cut the TOTAL cost to around 20-30% of what the costs would have been assuming no change in volume after the price change. Of course there could be further losses such as a total loss of valet going forward as well which wouldn't surprise me at the DVC resorts in question.
I, personally, don't look at it as paying someone else's way. It you choose not to use it, then that's a personal decision. If I choose to use it, then I have taken advantage of the perk. I don't use Internet service, but I certainly don't feel that I'm paying for someone else because they do. It certainly doesn't bother me. I choose not to utilize this "free" service.
