NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[NewDCLGuy]

Possible, but a logical reason that DISNEY would have an interest as to whether the contractor offers a discount or free service is....? I mean, surely Disney does not control the prices at shops not owned by them. It is like saying a landlord controls the prices that a shop in the mall can charge.

Especially considering it would likely slightly boost DVC sales in a bad economy. How would it be in Disney's interest to do so?

The argument isn't that

- Disney required the contractor to stop offering the freebie. It's

- Disney stopped requiring the contractor to offer the freebie.

 

[NewDCLGuy]

Irrelevant as verbal promises or discussions have no legal basis.

Just to be nit-picky, verbal promises and discussion can be legally enforceable. Through they are near meaningless from a practical standpoint.

 

[Chuck S]

But Disney does set the rules. Look, I can easily accept the loss of free valet. But I can't accept the buck-passing some are doing for Disney.

Do we honestly think the contractor was voluntarily giving away free parking out of the goodness of it's heart. And then the contractor woke up one day and decided to long longer offer it?

The only reason for the contractor to offer free parking to DVC member is Disney required it. Then when Disney renegotiated the deal, Disney removed the requirement. The only reason to remove the requirement was to get a better deal from the contractor.

Giving away free valet parking to DVC members costs Disney money. Doesn't matter of Disney is providing the parking, or if it's done through a contractor. Having the contractor between Disney and the customer makes the cost harder to see, but it's still there. Disney made a decision to stop paying that cost. Fine, that's their business.

But let's stop pretending this wasn't Disney's decision.

I don't think it was directly Disney's decision. For instance, the contract may call for Disney to receive $X for each car parked by the contractor. Many commercial leases call for rent increases if the business occupying the space exceeds $x in gross. But it is the contractors decision on how to fund that amount.

The contractor could choose to fund it, and still offer DVC free parking, without reimbursement from dues though it would not be a wise business decision.

And DVC also continues to have the option of funding it through increased dues. Disney also has the option of funding it in full, if they choose. But the point is, someone has to pay for it...and if no business chooses to fund it, it then falls upon the individual member to decide to either fund it and pay the fee, or not use the service. Businesses rarely fund freebies and discounts without a verifiable offset, usually a direct increase in sales/profit. What is unfair about that?

Just like when a store offers a sale of "buy 2 get 1 free", they will be making more overall profit than if they offered 1/3 off the price of a single item, because they require you to by two at full price. How would a business verify/justify additional income through a free parking perk for DVC? They don't make us spend more $$ to use it, unlike the TiW perk, we weren't required to buy a Table Service meal at that resort which would show an immediate return on the free perk, and it is extremely unlikely that a free valet perk would actually lead people to buy more points than they need or could use, it is? I mean, really...can you see someone saying, "Honey, let's buy 50 more points because we get free valet parking at Beach Club!"

Unless the resort restaurants at the DVC resorts have seen a dramatic decrease in sales, there really is no way to justify free valet parking from a business standpoint.

 

[NewDCLGuy]

extremely unlikely that a free valet perk would actually lead people to buy more points than they need or could use, it is? I mean, really...can you see someone saying, "Honey, let's buy 50 more points because we get free valet parking at Beach Club!

I don't think free valet leads people to buy more points than they need, but it's one more factor that leads somebody to buy DVC (vs CRO or offsite timeshare). At some point, Disney felt the additional sales weren't enough to justify the cost. So they ditched it, no longer requiring the contractor to offer free parking and getting a better deal from them.

 

[Chuck S]

I don't think free valet leads people to buy more points than they need, but it's one more factor that leads somebody to buy DVC (vs CRO or offsite timeshare). At some point, Disney felt the additional sales weren't enough to justify the cost. So they ditched it, no longer requiring the contractor to offer free parking and getting a better deal from them.

But a continuing perk needs to see continuing verifiable results, no matter which business is offering the perk.

 

[NewDCLGuy]

But a continuing perk needs to see continuing verifiable results, no matter which business is offering the perk.

We completely agree there. The only question is who was offering the perk. Was it Disney, who insisted the contractor offer it? Or the contractor, who offered it out of the goodness of their heart?

 

[Chuck S]

We completely agree there. The only question is who was offering the perk. Was it Disney, who insisted the contractor offer it? Or the contractor, who offered it out of the goodness of their heart?

Does it really matter? No matter which entity was funding it, they have chosen to do so no longer. If Disney had made it a requirement of the original contract, and has chosen not to do so with the contract extension, or if the contractor funded it and has decided not to, the net outcome is the same for DVCers. Now, if dues had been funding it previously, then DVCers could make a good argument to continue it, other wise, not really.

 

[Sammie]

But Disney does set the rules. Look, I can easily accept the loss of free valet. But I can't accept the buck-passing some are doing for Disney.

Do we honestly think the contractor was voluntarily giving away free parking out of the goodness of it's heart. And then the contractor woke up one day and decided to long longer offer it?

The only reason for the contractor to offer free parking to DVC member is Disney required it. Then when Disney renegotiated the deal, Disney removed the requirement. The only reason to remove the requirement was to get a better deal from the contractor.

Giving away free valet parking to DVC members costs Disney money. Doesn't matter of Disney is providing the parking, or if it's done through a contractor. Having the contractor between Disney and the customer makes the cost harder to see, but it's still there. Disney made a decision to stop paying that cost. Fine, that's their business.

But let's stop pretending this wasn't Disney's decision.

I don't think anyone is pretending anything.

When Mears took over valet I do think they agreed to cover the cost of DVC free valet until the next contract. For one think I seem to remember Mears took over in the middle of fiscal year for Disney. At that time Mears had no reference to use as to the cost to them for this perk. I think they were possibly caught off guard as to how many people really use it and wanted a period of evaluation. As to whether Mears offered it as a good will gesture to secure this deal or Disney required it of them really does not matter.

After this period they realized it was an expense they were not willing to cover and passed it to Disney. Disney was not willing to cover it for DVC and DVC would have passed it the members to pay for out of the dues.

I have no problem with Disney not wanting to cover it, they don't provide it free for their own resorts why pay it for DVC.

As to DVC not wanting to pick up the cost, I was told they simply did not feel this was fair to the members that never used it and especially to those members at SSR and OKW where there is no valet offered.

I know from talking to valet staff at a couple of DVC resorts that some members are horrible about tipping since it was free and the valets said they were glad for it to end.

Even though we used the service, I had no problem with the decision to end the free valet, but did think DVC did a horrible job of communicating the change to members.

 

[Dean]

Just to be nit-picky, verbal promises and discussion can be legally enforceable. Through they are near meaningless from a practical standpoint.

If they can be proven which is almost impossible and depending on the other information. In this case you specifically sign that verbal representations are not binding and only those in writing are.

As to who orchestrated the demise of the valet, it really doesn't matter who suggested it, the reasons and market forces remain the same. Speculation is that there were contract negotiations and that the contracted company brought up the free group. It would not surprise me if Disney or even DVC made the suggestion to drop it in that context of needing to keep the contract price lower per the negotiations. I'm surprised it survived the initial round intact as it doesn't make business sense to contract in such a way.

 

[jagson]

Just a thought, don't know if its been brought up, but DVC should announce the various offers, ie free valet parking, as a limited time offer, to avoid members' expectations that these are "forever perks".

 

[Dean]

Just a thought, don't know if its been brought up, but DVC should announce the various offers, ie free valet parking, as a limited time offer, to avoid members' expectations that these are "forever perks".

I believe all of the listings for the perks includes a disclaimer. The POS clearly deliniates what/how things can change. While they don't remind you at every turn, in essence, they do this already.

 

[DVCPAT]

You realize they could close the parks completely, and all we'd have is the resorts. Or that each individual DVC resort could be managed by an outside enity and no longer part of DVC as a whole.

DME is Mears contracted, so it is certainly possible. But there is also the consideration of how MANY members, (the vast majority of membership) it would affect as opposed to a valet perk. Also realize that Transportation is funded several different ways, not entirely by dues. A portion of every multi day park ticket goes to transportation. This is not true of valet parking services. And DVC could possibly negotiate a discounted rate. I would hope most folks knew that going in, or at least read the documents during the time period they had to rescind.

It still boils down to whether you feel DVC continues to fill your overall vacation needs for what you pay. It is, at it's core, a timeshare, nothing more, nothing less...and if your vacation habits change, or you no longer feel there is any value in the use of your ownership....like any other timeshare, it would be time to sell.

True, and if it happened, some people would criticize those who complain and tell them they really don’t understand big business. When I sell, I’ll have no regrets. DVC has been a great deal and I’ve taken many vacations in WDW at its peak of customer service. I bought in at $57.00 a point and will see a small profit in the sale. The loss of valet by itself isn’t the main issue. It’s the outsourcing of front line workers and decline in quality and service.

It’s sad if you know the Walt Disney story. I know he’s dead and has been dead for some time, but his philosophy was successful back then and still is today. It’s a shame the company that has his name attached to its buildings doesn’t subscribe to it. The term "plusing” was coined by Walt Disney and simply means to continuosly tweak and strive for perfection. I guess the new philosophy is “were a timeshare, nothing more, nothing less”.

 

[crisi]

You mean Walt Disney, Union Buster? Who fought against giving credits to his animators on his films? The one who cooperated with HUAC?

Walt Disney was a businessman. A very good one.

 

[tjkraz]

Walt Disney was a businessman. A very good one.

Amen to that.

Walt is the guy who set up a separate shell company (WED) outside of Walt Disney Productions and routed some of their most valuable theme park innoventions through that entity. WDP shareholders--including his brother Roy--had no ownership. Walt ultimately made tens-of-millions for himself by selling WED to WDP. Roy got the shaft.

Walt was also the man who gave his designers and builders only a year to create and open Disneyland. Is it any wonder that the opening was such a disaster? But Walt had to start selling those tickets...

 

[Chuck S]

Walt Disney, and how he ran Walt Disney Productions is not the topic of this thread. You are welcome to start such a discussion on the DIS Community board, if you wish, it would be an interesting discussion, given the responses posted here. But please return this thread to the topic of valet parking.

Thanks.

 

[tiggerguy2000]

I have to say that I loved the free valet which I used on most trips in the last 10 plus years.I have never liked the three tip process that they use when pulling up to the front door (1 loads the cart,1 parks the car and 1 delivers the bags).While they keep stripping us of perks and restructuring the wording so they could change point value we should be able to change our part of ownership.Are we owners?
I might be wrong but it looks like we lost more then they gave since taking away the free park passes.The more members we have the less we have and the closer we are to the regular resort guests.I think part of why we all became members was because of the perks that seperated us from regular guests.

tiggerguy

 

[Chuck S]

I have to say that I loved the free valet which I used on most trips in the last 10 plus years.I have never liked the three tip process that they use when pulling up to the front door (1 loads the cart,1 parks the car and 1 delivers the bags).While they keep stripping us of perks and restructuring the wording so they could change point value we should be able to change our part of ownership.Are we owners?
I might be wrong but it looks like we lost more then they gave since taking away the free park passes.The more members we have the less we have and the closer we are to the regular resort guests.I think part of why we all became members was because of the perks that seperated us from regular guests.

tiggerguy

What are you referring to in the part I bolded? If you are referring to the ability to reallocate the point charts, the ability for DVC to do has been in the POS since day one. There was a reallocation in 1996 at OKW. You don't remember it, as according to your signature, you've been a member since 2000.

Also the free park passes ended before you purchased, as the program ended December 31, 1999, and was only valid for contracts purchased before early to mid 1996.

 

[TLSnell1981]

We are going to be staying at BWV next week. This will be our first visit, with a car, since the decision to discontinue free valet. Grrr...

 

[Dano1182]

We had always used and enjoyed the valet parking perk.(Yes we tipped both ways)
This year we self parked at BWV the self parking lot was jammed and the valet lot was almost empty.
clearly many people are not using valet.
They should enlarge the self parking lot and make it closer to BWV.

 

[MrShiny]

We just got back and saw something interesting. We went to valet at BoardWalk (we were eating at Kouzzina - which was surprisingly so-so), and the valet immediately stressed it was $12, but that if we were dining with Tables in Wonderland (we were) and showed our receipt, it was free. Good for me, because I had forgotten that perk!