NO MORE free valet parking for DVC members.

[tjkraz]

I personally think, a joint effort would benefit all parties. I wonder...how much this has affected the income of the valets?

I'm sure it has impacted the valets but they only have their employer to blame. According to Mr. Lewis, they decided to drop the free service with no discount offered to members. They should have known that usage would immediately drop and that their employees' tips would suffer.

I can only hope that DVC will consider some change to this policy.

Not sure what DVC can do. It all depends upon the vendor's willingness to negotiate a discount.

 

[Sandy321]

At the 2009 DVC Annual Meeting today, Jim Lewis commented on the loss of the Valet Parking perk - explaining that the service has always been provided by a 3rd party. That business offered the perk to DVC members but when their renewal contract was recently negotiated, they decided to no longer offer the service for free. Lewis indicated that DVC would be negotiating with them to offer Valet service to members at a discounted rate (but not Free any longer). No mention was made of any timetable for any potential discount.

Stay Tuned.

The consideration that I had was while the valets themselves made money (with tips) the company itself just saw a loss - full parking lots, no revenue (IF DVC didnt provide $$ for the service, not sure on that aspect)

 

[vicki_c]

We average two WDW vacations per year…..my youngest daughters pin collection alone probably totals one deluxe vacation.

LOL! Must be something in the MD water -- I can say the same!

 

[LIFERBABE]

The consideration that I had was while the valets themselves made money (with tips) the company itself just saw a loss - full parking lots, no revenue (IF DVC didnt provide $$ for the service, not sure on that aspect)

Exactly! IMO, the Valets were happy, the company was not. I think they saw $ signs in DVC and maybe hoped it would be negotiated into a contract and paid with member dues.

It appears that DVC pulled the rug out and squashed the entire thing leaving the 3rd party in a bad way and members to ante up if they wanted to continue to valet park.

Now DVC can go back to the table and negotiate for a discount perk which will still provide the vendor with more revenue than they are receiving now and a new appreciation for DVC to their bottom line.

I still dont appreciate the way this all went down, but I have a better understanding of the dynamics and attending the meeting yesterday was helpful.

 

[DVCPAT]

At the 2009 DVC Annual Meeting today, Jim Lewis commented on the loss of the Valet Parking perk - explaining that the service has always been provided by a 3rd party.
Stay Tuned.

I thought Disney subcontracted valet parking to Mears a few years ago. Have they always went to outside contractors for valet service?

 

[Chuck S]

I thought Disney subcontracted valet parking to Mears a few years ago. Have they always went to outside contractors for valet service?

Even if/when Disney provided the valet services, it was still a third party as far as DVC was concerned. Disney and DVC are legally seperate entities, and must negotiate between themselves for perks.

 

[DVCPAT]

Even if/when Disney provided the valet services, it was still a third party as far as DVC was concerned. Disney and DVC are legally seperate entities, and must negotiate between themselves for perks.

Yes, but when Disney subcontracted the service, they lost control. When Disney doesn’t have control, they can’t do what’s beneficial for Disney as a whole. That’s appears why this mess happened.

 

[Chuck S]

Yes, but when Disney subcontracted the service, they lost control. When Disney doesn’t have control, they can’t do what’s beneficial for Disney as a whole. That’s appears why this mess happened.

Disney could easily take back control if they feel it is in their own best interest to do so. They didn't have to renew the contract, they could have taken the valet services back into the mouse house. Believe me, just as with DVC, Disney writes and agrees to contracts that benefit the company overall.

And financially, it probably isn't best for the mouse to run the valet services and give free valet to DVCers, and more than it is in their best interest to subsidize the services for DVCers.

 

[dis-happy]

Have only read this thread intermittently, so maybe this has already been brought up. There is a huge assumption that DVC members who were getting free valet parking were also actually tipping every time. Now I know that no one the DIS would treat a free service as actually free, but is it possible that valet became sick and tired of paying to have enough staff on duty but that the tips from numerous DVC members weren't actually forthcoming? Just a thought...

 

[DVCPAT]

Disney could easily take back control if they feel it is in their own best interest to do so. They didn't have to renew the contract, they could have taken the valet services back into the mouse house. Believe me, just as with DVC, Disney writes and agrees to contracts that benefit the company overall.

And financially, it probably isn't best for the mouse to run the valet services and give free valet to DVCers, and more than it is in their best interest to subsidize the services for DVCers.

It might be easy to take back control at the end of the contract. Hind sites always 20/20, who knew how this would unfold. Sometimes managers who make decisions are reluctant to make a 180 until after the damage is done. Senior Disney managers invented the wheel, less experienced managers like to Reinvent it.

 

[DebbieB]

Have only read this thread intermittently, so maybe this has already been brought up. There is a huge assumption that DVC members who were getting free valet parking were also actually tipping every time. Now I know that no one the DIS would treat a free service as actually free, but is it possible that valet became sick and tired of paying to have enough staff on duty but that the tips from numerous DVC members weren't actually forthcoming? Just a thought...

It's also a huge assumption that people will be tipping on top of the $12 fee. I think people would be more generous with the tip if they didn't have to pay $12 first.

It might be easy to take back control at the end of the contract. Hind sites always 20/20, who knew how this would unfold. Sometimes managers who make decisions are reluctant to make a 180 until after the damage is done. Senior Disney managers invented the wheel, less experienced managers like to Reinvent it.

Disney does not want to take back control unless there are huge problems. Outsourcing is big in business today. You just pay a contract price, you don't have to worry about giving the workers benefits, paying for Workers Comp insurance, etc.

 

[DVCPAT]

Disney does not want to take back control unless there are huge problems. Outsourcing is big in business today. You just pay a contract price, you don't have to worry about giving the workers benefits, paying for Workers Comp insurance, etc.

Outsourcing is basically saying I can’t do my job efficiently. You may simply pay a contract price, but in the end you get a work force who really don’t care about your business. Outsourcing is unheard of overseas. I wonder if “not worrying” is the main reason for the United States is trailing the world in most every industry.

 

[Sammie]

Not sure what DVC can do. It all depends upon the vendor's willingness to negotiate a discount.

Lewis indicated that DVC would be negotiating with them to offer Valet service to members at a discounted rate

They can do what JL said they would do, a discounted rate would be great.

 

[Dean]

Thanks for the information.

I personally think, a joint effort would benefit all parties. I wonder...how much this has affected the income of the valets?

We don't know and any speculation on our part would be random guesses unless someone has truly inside info. It's likely to reduce their tips and the number of people employed in that capacity with the latter likely being the larger issues. Not that it impacts the decision on DVC's side, it shouldn't for a subcontractor.

Have only read this thread intermittently, so maybe this has already been brought up. There is a huge assumption that DVC members who were getting free valet parking were also actually tipping every time. Now I know that no one the DIS would treat a free service as actually free, but is it possible that valet became sick and tired of paying to have enough staff on duty but that the tips from numerous DVC members weren't actually forthcoming? Just a thought...

We don't really know but it's unlikely that Mears decided to raise fees by cutting the free DVC with the intent of paying the valet staff more with any extra income. More likely they either felt the removal would generate more income compared to expenditures OR they were playing chicken with Disney and lost (or a combo). Hopefully they can negotiate a rate that's low enough to make everyone happy OR they can get a large enough volume discount to return to the "free" service. It will likely take a couple of years though to settle all of this out. If, as was reported, the valet spaces are tied to the contract, MEARS can expect that issue on the table next round as well.

Outsourcing is basically saying I can’t do my job efficiently. You may simply pay a contract price, but in the end you get a work force who really don’t care about your business. Outsourcing is unheard of overseas. I wonder if “not worrying” is the main reason for the United States is trailing the world in most every industry.

To a degree but there's more to it than that. Often outsourcing removes you from a liability standpoint and often it takes issues off your plate and allows you to concentrate on what you do better. It appears to be very common to oursource valet at resorts from what I've seen.

 

[MenashaCorp]

We are currently staying at BWV and are experiencing the full parking lot problem that worried me before driving down. Tons of Florida license plates, no parking pass on display, obviously not resort guests.

It may not have been appropriate fodder for the DVC meeting, but I'd love to hear/to have heard BWV/DVC's explanation of why members/resort guests are not given preference for parking. Why have a gated and guarded entrance then let in everyone? Why have parking "passes" at all??

Money, obviously, drives this like everything else. Big sports weekend; they want all comers to use the BW restaurants, clubs, whatever, but it really sucks (pardon my language) to OWN at a resort and be told "You could always valet" (for $12/day) as the solution for a full parking lot.


Nice to meet you at the DIS seminar yesterday, Doc.

 

[DebbieB]

We are currently staying at BWV and are experiencing the full parking lot problem that worried me before driving down. Tons of Florida license plates, no parking pass on display, obviously not resort guests.

It may not have been appropriate fodder for the DVC meeting, but I'd love to hear/to have heard BWV/DVC's explanation of why members/resort guests are not given preference for parking. Why have a gated and guarded entrance then let in everyone? Why have parking "passes" at all??

Money, obviously, drives this like everything else. Big sports weekend; they want all comers to use the BW restaurants, clubs, whatever, but it really sucks (pardon my language) to OWN at a resort and be told "You could always valet" (for $12/day) as the solution for a full parking lot.

Nice to meet you at the DIS seminar yesterday, Doc.

I just returned last night from a week at BWV. We had parking issues last Saturday when we arrived. After going out for groceries, I mentioned it to the guard when I returned and he said it was due to crowds at ESPN for football games. He suggested valet parking, which really ticked me off. I said I'll be darned if I'm paying $12 to park when they are allowing non-hotel guests to take the spaces. He just threw up his hands. Luckily, I found a space pretty easy that time (about 5:00pm). The rest of the week we didn't have a problem.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

I just returned last night from a week at BWV. We had parking issues last Saturday when we arrived. After going out for groceries, I mentioned it to the guard when I returned and he said it was due to crowds at ESPN for football games. He suggested valet parking, which really ticked me off. I said I'll be darned if I'm paying $12 to park when they are allowing non-hotel guests to take the spaces. He just threw up his hands. Luckily, I found a space pretty easy that time (about 5:00pm). The rest of the week we didn't have a problem.

Do you think it would be worth the time to email member satisfaction about this? I've not been one to do this in the past but as an owner this is directly affecting our membership. maybe it's time I send one? So glad you said something even though it fell on deaf ears.

 

[DebbieB]

Do you think it would be worth the time to email member satisfaction about this? I've not been one to do this in the past but as an owner this is directly affecting our membership. maybe it's time I send one? So glad you said something even though it fell on deaf ears.

I have been thinking about it. If I could not find a space after returning with the groceries and had to valet, I planned to hunt down the manager but luckily I found a space on the right next to the handicapped. That was the third time I parked on Saturday. We parked when we got there, found a space on the first go around. After we checked in and had lunch (our room was ready), I pulled the car up to the entrance to drop off the luggage with my friend. When I went to repark the car is when I had issues. It was probably around 3:00, cars were all over the lot hunting spaces. After 2 go arounds, I finally just parked in one of the company spaces. There was only 1 vehicle parked in the 8 or so spaces they had reserved. I only needed to park for a few minutes while I helped my friend take the luggage up to the room, we then planned to go grocery shopping. When we went back down to the lot, it was crazy, cars everywhere, probably about 3:30. I guess people were arrving for the big game that started around 4:00, or were heading to Epcot for CP. What really bugged me is they had the main entrance from the driveway blocked off but no guard at the side entrance, so what was the point? They really could use a short term parking area like AKV Kidani has, where you can park while you go in to check-in.

 

[ArtieMcD]

Sorry to be a contrarian here, but I don't understand what all the frustration is about the loss of free valet parking..... As DVC owners we should be familiar with the fact that nothing we get from DVC is free (especially when we are about to get a particularly big bill to remind us of this fact every year).

Of course, it's always nice when Disney negotiates on our behalf to provide services and perks to us free of charge. But as we know, many of them are of course self serving to Disney (Magical Express, access to the dining plan, free internet, etc)... IE, give us something free that will likely raise revenues elsewhere. But just like any contracted service the Board of Directors establishes for each of our resorts... They all have expiration dates and subject to change and renegotiation when the deal is up.

In fact, I am floored that at the annual meeting there was not a motion by Boardwalk owners (arguable the one DVC resort that really needs valet parking) to ask the board to negotiate a contract for valet parking at the resorts, find out what it would cost in dues to the members, and determine if it's in the best interest for all members to pay for the perk based on actual utilization. The board can gather the information and present something to the owners to vote on. Yes, DVD controls the voting representatives but they still must do what is in the best interest of the majority of the owners.

At the end of the day, if we members need a service to be provided.... We are going to pay for it... It is not Disney we need to worry about here, it's all of us as members who we must convince of the need... Because a "perk” one member may find desirable, may not be desirable to another member. The Board of Directors of each resort has to balance the services offers to us an whether there is a real need to burden members with additional dues for "perks". Heck, I garuntee that if there is some service we as members want Disney to provide bad enough, and we agree to pay for it via dues... Disney would jump at the chance to offer the service... It's garunteed revenue to them. They are virtually assured of having revenue to staff and support the operations of the resorts and DVD itself as long as our condominimums continue to exist. Case in point... The Saratoga Spring Pool renovation... construction to be completely funded by the owners of SSR.

I personally have a hard time myself deciding what I feel would be best for the Boardwalk Resort as to whether members should pay for Valet through dues, or via pay per use. I can see the arguments either way.... Valet is necessary there and a bulk contract would certainly be more economical for all the owners versus the pay per use model. But why should members who don’t have a vehicle pay for it. Of course, we pay (and set aside reserves) for the maintenance of the parking lots at the DVC resorts, and I hardly hear complaints from members who say they don't want to pay for this "resort amenity" they do not use.

In fact, I'd be interested in seeing what the difference in the owner share of maintenance of the parking lot at BWV and other resorts with ample parking (such as BLT or AKV). I'm betting because the parking lot at BWV is small in comparison, the share of dues for parking maintenance there is smaller in relation to the other resorts. If this is the case, then I would think the owners at BWV would be in favor of increasing the parking budget to be comparable to the other resorts and either increase the parking availability or sign a contract with a vendor to provide valet services again.

 

[CarolMN]

Just FYI - Posts #1455-#1459 were moved from the 2009 Annual meeting thread to keep things on topic.