NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[jdg345]

When you "pay" to valet park you should get a voucher or hang tag showing you have paid and that is used to allow you to park the rest of that day without charge.

If you valet park with KIW you don't pay, therefore you do not get the voucher or hang tag, therefore after dinner if you go back to your resort and use valet you will be charged.

There would be no reason for them not to, as you don't posses the receipt for paying earlier.

So when I pick up my car next, assuming I've been charged, I'll get some sort of voucher I'll need to pass along? Sounds inefficient.

 

[Chuck S]

So when I pick up my car next, assuming I've been charged, I'll get some sort of voucher I'll need to pass along? Sounds inefficient.

Inefficient, perhaps. But that is how it works. I guess it has worked well enough, and is cheaper than installing terminals and tracking programs at the valet desks.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

Don't they still use the color coded Mickey things that dangle from the mirror?

Last year at WL they were able to tell me my valet history for the week, so they do have some capability.

MG

 

[Sammie]

Don't they still use the color coded Mickey things that dangle from the mirror?

Last year at WL they were able to tell me my valet history for the week, so they do have some capability.

MG

I thought so.

 

[jdg345]

Inefficient, perhaps. But that is how it works. I guess it has worked well enough, and is cheaper than installing terminals and tracking programs at the valet desks.

They have something they scan the barcode against when I drop off the car, so they should have some sort of tracking program.

That said, very strange: I don't have a valet charge for the day I used the TIW card to park at another resort and then valet'd at my 'sleep' resort; however, I do have a charge for the second day at my 'sleep' resort for the day which the car did not move.

 

[DebbieB]

They have something they scan the barcode against when I drop off the car, so they should have some sort of tracking program.

That said, very strange: I don't have a valet charge for the day I used the TIW card to park at another resort and then valet'd at my 'sleep' resort; however, I do have a charge for the second day at my 'sleep' resort for the day which the car did not move.

Did you leave the car in valet? If so, you will be charged for each day.

 

[dmoore22]

I keep checking back on this thread wondering how long people are going to complain about the removal of a perk they were never promised when they signed the papers. Well you all are greattttttt...... it has been going on for, lets see about 40 days!!

I wonder if it ought to be made a "sticky" about complaining?

Moe

Day 44 and still counting.

 

[Tony-NJ]

Day 44 and still counting.

 

[jdg345]

Did you leave the car in valet? If so, you will be charged for each day.

That's just it ... I wasn't charged for that day ... still not on the bill.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

That's just it ... I wasn't charged for that day ... still not on the bill.

That doesn't surprise me. Yes, you should get charged, but that valet outfit often misses charges, or charges when they shouldn't.
When Disney outsiurced the valet it went straight downhill, and it was obvious.

MG

 

[Mickey'sApprentice]

Have you guys noticed that nobody has posted BWV maintenance fees for 2010? Hmm...

 

[tgropp]

I just got back from the Beach Club yesterday. There were less than 35 cars in the valet parking lot at 9 in the morning. I heard lots of people discussing it while there and I also noticed lots of people refusing bellhop service. Bellhop and valet personnel were out there twidling their thumbs with nothing to do....and this at the start of Thanksgiving holidays

 

[jdg345]

That doesn't surprise me. Yes, you should get charged, but that valet outfit often misses charges, or charges when they shouldn't.
When Disney outsiurced the valet it went straight downhill, and it was obvious.

MG

I'm going to try again today and see what happens. Strangely coincidental that the same day I wasn't charged was also the same day I used a TIW card at another resort to comp valet.

 

[jdg345]

I just got back from the Beach Club yesterday. There were less than 35 cars in the valet parking lot at 9 in the morning. I heard lots of people discussing it while there and I also noticed lots of people refusing bellhop service. Bellhop and valet personnel were out there twidling their thumbs with nothing to do....and this at the start of Thanksgiving holidays

Strange, according to 'popular opinion', it was a minority of DVC'ers that used this perk.

BTW, what exactly where they discussing? The loss of the free valet perk? Was the refusal of bellhop service a sort of retaliation for the change? I'm here now and haven't really heard too much on the subject.

The Valet and Bellhop Personnel are going to have a rough holiday if this keeps up. They make most of their money in tips. When we used the perk, we would always tip on the way out. It certainly is strange to see these folks just standing about when they used to be constantly running around before.

 

[Chuck S]

Strange, according to 'popular opinion', it was a minority of DVC'ers that used this perk.

A "minority" of DVC membership is still a lot of members, given membership is over 300,000 people, but still a large number can be a minority of overall DVC guests. The real question is who should pay for the valet parking. Those that use it, the entire membership, the contractor who has to employ additonal personnel to provide the perk, or Disney/DVC Marketing?

It would seem that many members feel "anyone but those that actually use it" should pay for it.

 

[jdg345]

A "minority" of DVC membership is still a lot of members, given membership is over 300,000 people, but still a large number can be a minority of overall DVC guests. The real question is who should pay for the valet parking. Those that use it, the entire membership, the contractor who has to employ additonal personnel to provide the perk, or Disney/DVC Marketing?

It would seem that many members feel "anyone but those that actually use it" should pay for it.

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.

 

[MELSMICE]

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.

Agree 100%. I think I posted previously that I'm an OKW owner, so I know about all the hype when the slide was going in.

I knew I was not going to use the slide, but I did not have a negative opinion about it. It was good for the resort. I don't use the Internet service, but I think it's something that members should get. We never pool hop, but it's a great perk for those that do. We do use valet & I'm bummed that the perk has been taken away.

In reality I guess I'm paying for some services that others use that I don't!

 

[Chuck S]

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.

But you have incorrectly listed several different types of things for comparison. Members do not pay for pool hopping, reservation services are not a "perk" and is a necessary management component for the use of our resorts, thus the only comparable perk you list is Internet, and again, the cost of that services is extremely low compared to valet, as it is not labor intensive, like valet. For several years DVCers did pay for internet services as they used them, at least until the initial cost of the wiring infrastructure was re-couped.

DVC has said that dues were not paying for the free valet, it was a perk financed either by DVC Marketing, or the contractor (or both), who chooses not to do so any longer. Thus it would mean adding a new component to dues to continue the "perk." How much of a cost per point would be too much for those that don't use the perk to absorb?

Remember, too, that if the perk continued as it was, but was financed by dues at those resorts, they'd be paying for the service for other DVC owners not staying at the resort. Basically All DVCers would be able to get free parking at the expense of owners that own at valet resorts. Is that fair to those owners?

Another consideration, if the valet lot is full, but the service is being paid for by the dues, shouldn't all members have the "right" to valet park, whether the lot is full or not...after all, the member is paying for it.

 

[tjkraz]

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.

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.

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.

 

[jdg345]

But you have incorrectly listed several different types of things for comparison. Members do not pay for pool hopping, reservation services are not a "perk" and is a necessary management component for the use of our resorts, thus the only comparable perk you list is Internet, and again, the cost of that services is extremely low compared to valet, as it is not labor intensive, like valet. For several years DVCers did pay for internet services as they used them, at least until the initial cost of the wiring infrastructure was re-couped.

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.

DVC has said that dues were not paying for the free valet, it was a perk financed either by DVC Marketing, or the contractor (or both), who chooses not to do so any longer. Thus it would mean adding a new component to dues to continue the "perk." How much of a cost per point would be too much for those that don't use the perk to absorb?

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.

Remember, too, that if the perk continued as it was, but was financed by dues at those resorts, they'd be paying for the service for other DVC owners not staying at the resort. Basically All DVCers would be able to get free parking at the expense of owners that own at valet resorts. Is that fair to those owners?

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?

Another consideration, if the valet lot is full, but the service is being paid for by the dues, shouldn't all members have the "right" to valet park, whether the lot is full or not...after all, the member is paying for it.

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