PM EMH drops from THREE Hours to TWO Hours

[gator girl]

We're just practicing our "no patience or simple courtesy" to get our fellow visitors ready for their park experiences.

It's a public service, really. We're kind of noble if you think about it.

 

[mesaboy2]

We're just practicing our "no patience or simple courtesy" to get our fellow visitors ready for their park experiences.

It's a public service, really. We're kind of noble if you think about it.

Like.

 

[maxiesmom]

Rough numbers:

MK, Ep, DHS, DAK hours open per week ***
including 1-hour AM EMH x5 (MK x1, Ep x1, DHS x1, DAK x2)
including 3-hour PM EMH x4 (MK x2, Ep x1, DHS x1, DAK x0)
= 350 Theme Park hours open weekly, AVERAGE

Cut 4 hours per week of PM EMH (MK x2, Ep x1, DHS x1, DAK x0)
= 346 Theme Park hours open weekly, AVERAGE

Result:
Save 4 hours out of 350 in on-line CM wages (some in overtime) per week, across the board.

That is a rough wages savings of ONE-point-one percent. (.011) or (1.1%)

Is this the kind of powerful cost-cutting that will "make or break" the bottom line for Disney Parks?

No, but a bunch of small cuts add up. A smart business just doesn't look for huge cuts. And if that extra hour can be used more productively (remember some people don't like seeing them do any maintenance while the parks are open) plus save them a bit on utilities and staff, then it sounds like a good cut from a business standpoint.

For all my good intentions, I have never made the 3rd hour of EMH. And what posters who do go usually post about how empty the parks are then. It doesn't sound like a good business decision to leave the parks open and pay for all that that costs, for only a handful of people.

I wish the store I work at would realize that fact when we are open late around Christmas and all we get very few real customers. But quite a few drunks and trouble-makers. There is no way they are making enough money to pay our wages and utilities, but dang we might have 1 real customer!!

 

[KellyNY]

No, but a bunch of small cuts add up. A smart business just doesn't look for huge cuts. And if that extra hour can be used more productively (remember some people don't like seeing them do any maintenance while the parks are open) plus save them a bit on utilities and staff, then it sounds like a good cut from a business standpoint.

For all my good intentions, I have never made the 3rd hour of EMH. And what posters who do go usually post about how empty the parks are then. It doesn't sound like a good business decision to leave the parks open and pay for all that that costs, for only a handful of people.

I wish the store I work at would realize that fact when we are open late around Christmas and all we get very few real customers. But quite a few drunks and trouble-makers. There is no way they are making enough money to pay our wages and utilities, but dang we might have 1 real customer!!

I completely agree with you. I think this particular cut does not affect many people but it really saves money. Definitely smart move.

 

[Robo]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying in.

Any more than I'd walk across the street if a company was having a Summer Clearance Sale...
all items 1.1% Off.

 

[KellyNY]

Sorry, but, I'm not buying in.

Any more than I'd walk across the street if a company was having a Summer Clearance Sale...
all items 1.1% Off.

Then what is the reason? They were cutting here and there for a while to save little here, little there. I honestly do not see any other reason.

 

[Robo]

Then what is the reason? They were cutting here and there for a while to save little here, little there. I honestly do not see any other reason.

I'm sure that IS their reason.
What I'm riled about is that it looks to be a "cut for the sake of cutting something" just so that it LOOKS good to a manager somewhere.
Not enough REAL tangible savings in budget to counter the ill will it will generate with guests.
If I was serious about "making a difference," and 1% was the net (or gross) "savings" at the cost of publicly cutting 20-30% of guest benefits in a popular program,
I'd consider taking different action.

 

[KellyNY]

I'm sure that IS their reason.
What I'm riled about is that it looks to be a "cut for the sake of cutting something" just so that it LOOKS good to a manager somewhere.
Not enough REAL tangible savings in budget to counter the ill will it will generate with guests.
If I was serious about "making a difference," and 1% was the net (or gross) "savings" at the cost of publicly cutting 20-30% of guest benefits in a popular program,
I'd consider taking different action.

I am sure they calculated this move. I do not think it is just to cut something, how evil do you think Iger really is, and 1% you are talking about maybe not exactly the right number, just like we do not know how many people will actually consider it a loss.

 

[larryz]

...how evil do you think Iger really is...

Does that help?

 

[mom2rtk]

^^^^ LOL! That's awesome.........and about sums it all up!

 

[KellyNY]

Does that help?

 

[Scrooge Jr]

The following information begins in January, 2013.



The lowering of service at a new higher price continues.
This will undoubtedly make PM EMH a much busier and less attractive choice.

I wonder if this will be the case only in "low crowd" seasons or is it the new PM EMH norm.


.

Thanks we will be rethinking visiting WDW for 2013.

 

[stitchrulz]

For all my good intentions, I have never made the 3rd hour of EMH. And what posters who do go usually post about how empty the parks are then. It doesn't sound like a good business decision to leave the parks open and pay for all that that costs, for only a handful of people.

Again, this was supposed to be the big draw of the EMH -- It's like having the park to yourself! And, the ones who do stay the whole time probably haven't been in the parks all day. They've budgeted those hours into their schedule as one of the benfits of staying on-site. Meaning, they probably arrived a bit later in the evening, etc.

We arrive on Sunday afternoon, unpack, have dinner then head to MK as Sunday has been EMH night, and yes, we've stayed the whole three hours. The crowds were nice, and it was much cooler, but I wouldn't characterize any of the times we'd stayed as there only being a handful of guests. In fact, way back in the olden days before "free" dining, there were much lower crowds during the off season than even the EMH now. Talk about having the park to yourself!

 

[Robo]

1- I am sure they calculated this move.

2- I do not think it is just to cut something,

3- how evil do you think Iger really is, and 1% you are talking about maybe not exactly the right number, just like we do not know how many people will actually consider it a loss.

1- They also calculated the move with the early monorail closures.
It didn't go over so well with guests.
In fact, they made some reversals.

2- I've seen corporate middle management's go-to plan
of "do something... do ANYTHING" for decades.
No stretch of the imagination, there.

3- You jumped to the CEO? I hadn't given him a thought.
I'm thinking this management decision is a bit below his radar.

My calculations:
Disney has decided to cut the parks being open by 3 hours a week.
Divide that by the average posted number of hours they are open in a week,
and you've got a percentage number.
Granted it's rough, but give-or-take, it's close enough.

It's a savings to Disney in staff and on-line attraction operations of roughly 1.1%
(One and one tenth percent) per week.

But-
This is a direct loss for the on-property GUESTS (the EMH perk) of
21% cut, if you count AM EMH
30% cut, if you count only PM EMH (and many guests ONLY do PM EMH.)

(Numbers)
Prior to 2013:
AM EMH 5 hours/week (avg.)
PM EMH 9 hours/week (avg.)
Total EMH 14 hours.

After the 2013 cut:
AM EMH 5 hours/week (avg.)
PM EMH 6 hours/week (avg.)
Total EMH 11 hours.

so-
21% cut, if you count AM -and- PM EMH, together.
30% cut, if you count only PM EMH (and many guests ONLY do PM EMH.)

Not a catastrophe... just another negative move.

.

 

[Robo]

Again, this was supposed to be the big draw of the EMH -- It's like having the park to yourself!

Yes. The IDEA was "fewer guests in the park."
That IS what EMH is all about.
It's the reason they could market it as a benefit.

So, they do operate EMH with fewer guests.
Then, somebody ELSE (who likely was not IN on the creation of EMH)
looks and sees... fewer guests in the park!

"Shazam!... I could save some money here!"

And, the original idea is lost in the shuffle.


How many of us have not seen many of those kind of things happen
where we work?

Some new policy that we watched being formulated
comes IN...
Works just fine for X years...
Change managers...
"Why do we need that?"
Bang! Policy's gone.

Sheesh!

 

[KellyNY]

1- They also calculated the move with the early monorail closures.
It didn't go over so well with guests.
In fact, they made some reversals.

2- I've seen corporate middle management's go-to plan
of "do something... do ANYTHING" for decades.
No stretch of the imagination, there.

3- You jumped to the CEO? I hadn't given him a thought.
I'm thinking this management decision is a bit below his radar.

My calculations:
Disney has decided to cut the parks being open by 3 hours a week.
Divide that by the average posted number of hours they are open in a week,
and you've got a percentage number.
Granted it's rough, but give-or-take, it's close enough.

It's a savings to Disney in staff and on-line attraction operations of roughly 1.1%
(One and one tenth percent) per week.

But-
This is a direct loss for the on-property GUESTS (the EMH perk) of
21% cut, if you count AM EMH
30% cut, if you count only PM EMH (and many guests ONLY do PM EMH.)

(Numbers)
Prior to 2013:
AM EMH 5 hours/week (avg.)
PM EMH 9 hours/week (avg.)
Total EMH 14 hours.

After the 2013 cut:
AM EMH 5 hours/week (avg.)
PM EMH 6 hours/week (avg.)
Total EMH 11 hours.

so-
21% cut, if you count AM -and- PM EMH, together.
30% cut, if you count only PM EMH (and many guests ONLY do PM EMH.)

Not a catastrophe... just another negative move.

.

I am sure only they know their actual management plans and while your calculations are impressive, once again they may be simply off. Do not forget it is also energy savings. It may seem not that much but do not forget we are talking about Disney, place that adds only few $$ to their tickets each year, not a lot but they do add it and they added 25c to water, just few examples I can think of right now. Little by little they do save.
As for % of benefit cut. While this calculation is right, there is also another % to consider which is more important, how many use EMH and how many use the 3rd hour. I personally do not think number is high based only on reports, I never did 3rd hour even so I love evening hours.
So, I think while there will be people upset, I do not feel like this will be a problem or a deciding factor for staying on site or any other extreme reaction and therefore it is another good move for Disney.

 

[Planogirl]

It seems like a small thing just like other small things. Those small things pile up though and before you know it certain benefits have vanished. It's the old slippery slope argument.

 

[disneyphilip]

I'm guessing it will cover costs on AoA, FL expansion and the complete re-furbs at resorts like POR.

I don't think they are trying to cut costs, more like cover costs.

I fully agree.

So many people are acting like Chicken Little here. The sky is NOT falling!

 

[disEAR]

After thinking it over:

Sorcerers of the Magic Kingdom
Art of Animation Resort
New FantasyLand
DVC Expansions
Test Track Revamp
Land of Pandora
Rumored: Radiator Springs Racers


...I think I can live with one hour less in the parks each night.

 

[tiki23]

The sky is NOT falling!

Maybe not where you are; my weather report may be a little different. My family loves PM-EMH; we'd take 4 hours if we could get it! Quite honestly because of this, we may decide to stay off-site now for our 2013 family reunion trip.

For me, anything "Country Bear Jamboree" gives me the heeby-jeebies; that's obviously not the way you feel.

To each their own!